IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.9633 of 2008. Decided on: 15.12.2010. Susheela Dharma. ……….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Another. ……….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath,Advocate. For the respondents : Mr.P.M.Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner’s husband died in harness on 08.03.2002. A sum of Rs. 46,122/- was deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner’s husband on 30th December, 2002. Petitioner has not been heard before the decision was taken to deduct a sum of Rs. 46,122/-. Petitioner has suffered civil and evil consequences. Petitioner ought to have been heard before the decision was taken to deduct a sum of Rs. 46,122/- from the death-gratuity of the petitioner’s husband. The only explanation given by the respondents-State is that the recoveries have been effected on the basis of audit objection. This plea is not sustainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The decision to recover a sum of Rs. 46,122/- is quashed and set-aside. In normal circumstances, the respondents-State ought to have been given an opportunity to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Since the petitioner is a widow, the continuation of proceedings will cause immense hardship to her, therefore, the proceedings are closed. The amount deducted is directed to be refunded to the petitioner 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. No. with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within a period of two months after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. December 15,2010. (krt) 2