IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 13729 of 2008. Decided on: 9.11.2010 Vijay Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge For the petitioner: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.(Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “a) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the applicant rupees 12,570/- alongwith interest @ 24% from the date when this amount was due to the applicant & annexures A-1 & A-3 may kindly be quashed and set-aside being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.” 2. In the reply in para-6, it is stated as follows: “1. D.F.O. Mandi, Forest Division, Mandi had intimated recovery of Rs.500/- on account of T.S. advance paid to the applicant, vide his memo No. 1615 dated 31.05.1996(attached as Annexure-R-1). This T.A. advance was granted to the applicant by D.F.O. Mandi vide debit voucher No. 25/Supdt. of 06/83 (attached as Annexure R- II) during the year 1983-84. The recovery had been pointed out by the audit vide audit 2 para No.13 for the period w.e.f. 01.04.1983 to 31.03.1984 (copy attached as Annexure R- III). Hence a sum of Rs.500/- was recoverable from the applicant. 2. the Conservator of Forest Kullu Forest Circle, Kullu had also reported to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife H.P. Shimla that a sum of Rs.12069.32 had been imposed as penalty/Sale tax at the time of assessment of Sale Tax of defunct Timber Extraction Division for the year 1976-77, vide his office No. A.IX.92/5251 dated 26.08.1996(attached as Annexure-IV). The applicant had worked as Range Officer, mechanical and logging Range in Timber Extraction division, Kullu during the period. The applicant had sold timber worth Rs.156745.25 to M/S Gujral & Sons Pathankot and M/S India Veneers and Separator Mohal, Kullu and had collected only registration certificate but failed to charge Sale Tax amounting to Rs.12069.32.” 3. The petitioner retired from service in the year 1996. Admittedly, the recovery pertains to the years 1976-77 and 1983-84. Admittedly, no notice whatsoever has been issued to the petitioner. Still admittedly, no action has been taken while the petitioner was in service, long after the amounts were allegedly due from the petitioner. In view of the retirement of the petitioner in the year 1996 and in view of factual and legal position, as stated above, the recovery is ex-facie unjustifiable. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to disburse the recovered amounts to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of 3 this judgment by the petitioner. In case there is delay beyond a month, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of retirement and the officer(s) responsible for the same will be personally liable for the same. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Dasti copy. ( Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. November 9, 2010 (Justice V.K.Ahuja) (tilak/vt) Judge