1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 11653 of 2008 Date of decision: 23.12.2011. Lekh Ram, son of Shri Sunder Ram, r/o Village Jharlog, P.O. Jharlog, Tehsil Bhoranj, Distt. Hamirpur, presently Jr. Technician Grade-I under HPPWD Sundernagar Division S/Nagar, District Mandi. ......Petitioner Versus 1. Secretary (PW) Govt. of H.P. Shimla-171002 2. Superintending Engineer, HPPWD 1 st Circle, Mandi. 3. Executive Engineer, HPPWD Sundernagar Division, Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi (HP). ......Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? 1 No For the Petitioner :Mr. T.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy.A.G. Sanjay Karol, Judge( Oral). Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate, has invited my attention to the judgments passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 12571 of 2008, titled Dr. D.K. Arora vs. State of H.P. and ors., dated 9.7.2010 and CWP (T) No. 12574 of 2008, titled Dr. A.B. Gupta vs. State of H.P. and ors., dated 13.5.2011, copies of which are taken on record. In the instant case, I 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 find that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions is applicable. In Dr. Arora (supra) following direction was issued:- “3. Accordingly, in view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no recovery can be effected from the petitioner. Moreover, since the petitioner stands retired from service, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter alive. Consequently, the matter is closed. It is made clear that the recovery if already made from the petitioner shall be refunded to him.” Petitioner's pay was fixed by the Government. However subsequently there was downward revision in the pay scale by virtue of re-designation of the post from Driver to Junior Technician Grade-I. As a result thereof, respondents have recovered the amount, which already stood disbursed to the petitioner in the pre-revised scale. 2. In so far as the re-fixation of pay is concerned, correctness of the same is not disputed by the petitioner. However, grievance is that the amount already deducted has not been re-funded to the petitioner in terms of the decisions rendered in CWP(T) No. 12571 of 2008 and CWP(T) No. 12574 of 2008 (supra). As such, keeping in view the directions issued in the decisions, as noticed here- in-above, respondent No.3 is directed to re-fund the amount already deducted. 3 3. It is further urged that certain retiral benefits, including leave encashment to the tune of `29,307/- has not been released till date. Respondents are also directed to release the same, if not already released, to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner, failing which petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6%, which shall be personally recovered from the erring officer. 4. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. December 23, 2011. (pankaj)