IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 9123 of 2008 Date of decision: 08.03.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Parkash Chand. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: None for the petitioner, though duly served for today. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. AG. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). None appears for the petitioner, though duly served for today. 2. The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7(i) to (iii): “7(i) That the respondents may be directed to set aside/quash the operation of Annexure A-1 i.e. the recovery letter. (ii) That the respondents may be directed not to effect recovery to the tune of Rs. 22,800/- alongwith penal interest. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to pay back if any part of the amount is recovered alongwith the interest.” 3. In reply, the respondents have taken the following 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... stand vide paras 3 and 6(b): “3. That in reply to this para it is submitted that the respondent No. 3 has rightly directed the Headmaster Govt. High School (Girls) Bharmour District Chamba to make recovery of Rs. 22,800/- on account of LTC. The said recovery has been made from the applicant in consonance with the instruction/Rules on the Leave Traveling Concession accorded by the state Govt. to its employees. The LTC facility is available to the employees subject to fulfillment of certain condition. One of the condition for grant of LTC and reimbursement of LTC claim was that an employee was to travel through the Buses owned or operated upon by the Govt./Semi govt. organization /TDC buses as is evident from the Annexure A-1 itself. In the present case the applicant has not traveled in the aforesaid buses but in private buses, having their own route permit, ticket and travel certificate purported to be in the name of Garwal Mandal Vikash Nigam as is evident from the receipt and travel certificate, issued by the agent. The audit party of the Accountant General has rightly raised the objection of non admissibility of. 6(b) That the respondent No. 3 has rightly been ordered to effect the recovery of LTC availed by the applicant on the basis of discrepancies noticed by the Audit Party. Once the LTC benefits was wrongly given to which the applicant was not entitled as per rules/instructions of the condition of grant of LTC facilities then the recovery can be effected at any time without notice from the respondent/State, as withdrawn/recovery of amount was legally not admissible can be recovered any time.” 4. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, he may certainly point out the same before the respondents/competent authority by way of appropriate representation alongwith copy of this judgment within one month from today, who shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law within next three months after ...3... affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 5. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 8th March, 2011 (virender)