IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.8505 of 2008 Decided on : 7.12.2010 ___________________________________________________________ Dhian Chand … Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Ltd. and ohers … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms Archana Dutt., Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate __________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge.(Oral) The petition is filed on the following prayers:- “(i) That the action of the respondents with- holding/deducting the half of the amount of the award from the pensionary benefits of the applicant may be quashed and set and set aside. (ii) That the memo dated 23rd May, 2002 (Annexure A- 3) may be quashed and set aside. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to release all the due and admissible retiral benefits to the applicant without effecting any recovery.” 2. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the following stand has been taken in para 3:- “3. In reply to this para it is submitted that due to rash and negligent driving of the applicant, the bus met with an 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 accident and some passengers sustained injuries. Out of these injured passengers one Smt. Sansari Devi got spinal injuries, filed the case before M.A.C.T Mandi, H.P., The Ld. M.A.C.T Mandi taking into the consideration, whole circumstances of the case awarded a compensation of Rs. 1 Lac + 12% interest from the date of filing of the application in favour of petitioner. The Ld. M.A.C.T Mandi ordered that theawarded amount be paid jointly and severly by all the respondents, copy of the award is annexed herewith as annexure R-1. Since the applicant was one of the respondents before the Ld. M.A.C.T Mandi and he is required to pay the amount. In this behalf the applicant has been chargesheeted under rule 16 of C.C.S (C.C.A rules) 1965.” 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case arising out of the accident in question vide judgment dated 7.7.2000,Annexure A-4. It is also not in dispute that the respondent- Corporation has issued Office Order dated 3.2.2009, whereby a policy decision is stated to have been taken that in accident cases where the delinquent-driver has been acquitted by the Criminal Court, the Corporation would not resort to recover the amount of compensation awarded by the Accident Claims Tribunal in relation to such accident from the delinquent-driver. Though according to the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation since this policy decision was prospective in nature, the same would not apply retrospectively to this case, yet the fact remains that such contention has already been repelled by this Court in CWP(T) No. 2882 of 2008, Darshan Singh vs. H.R.T.C, decided on 15.12.2009. 4. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner in 3 the light of the aforesaid Office Order dated 3.2.2009 and take final decision in the mater within two months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner. Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any, would follow as per this judgment. 5. The writ petition, so also the pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 7th December, 2010. (lsp)