IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 9242 of 2008 Decided on : 28.02.2011 Subhash Chand …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. K.B.Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has confined his relief at the time of hearing for releasing ` 10,000/- along with interest. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a sum of ` 10,000/- was deducted from the salary of the petitioner on the basis of some audit objection. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the audit objection was reconciled but despite that the amount of ` 10,000/- has not been released to the petitioner. The amount of ` 10,000/- was deducted from the salary of the petitioner in installments from June, 1990 to March, 1991. 3. The reply has been filed by respondents No.1 to 3 in which it has been stated that the recovery of ` 10,000/- was deducted as pointed out by the Internal Audit conducted for the period 1983-84 to 1990-91 on account of agriculture inputs of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2 Lambagaon Block and recovery thereof was rightly affected as the officer did not reconcile the same. It has been stated that during 1994 on reconciliation the same stands settled. But when the case of refund was under process, there was contemplated recovery of other huge amounts from the petitioner for the year 1985-86 etc. It has been stated by the learned Additional Advocate General that the inquiry with respect to other recoveries is pending against the petitioner. 4. In the reply, the respondents have taken a specific stand that the amount of ` 10,000/- was recovered on account of Internal Audit but in 1994 on reconciliation, the same stands settled. The inquiry is goingon against the petitioner with respect to other alleged recoveries which has not been finalised. At this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner is liable to pay the other recoveries as alleged by the respondents. The amount of ` 10,000/- is not such a big amount which can cover the entire alleged amount due against the petitioner on account of recoveries as alleged by the respondents. It is the stand of the respondents that amount of recovery of ` 10,000/- from petitioner has already been settled. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to refund of ` 10,000/-. 5. The petition is allowed, the competent authority will refund the amount of ` 10,000/- to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of supply of copy of the judgment by the petitioner to the competent authority, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on ` 10,000/- from 3 24.5.2000 when the petitioner demanded the refund of ` 10,000/- till payment. The petition stands disposed of on above terms. ( Kuldip Singh ), February 28, 2011. Judge. (GR)