SBCWP NO.3783/06. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3783/2006. Brij Bhushan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- November 25, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Narendra Mishra for the petitioner. Shri P.S. Tomar for Shri R.K. Sharma for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition was filed by petitioner Brij Bhushan Sharma challenging the order passed by the respondents on 25/2/2005 by which, his entire retiral dues have been withheld pursuant to the recovery order passed by the Registrar Cooperative Samiti Bharatpur under Section 74(2) vide order dated 27/3/1997 thereby recovering Rs.57,000/- from the petitioner. It is contended that against such recovery order, petitioner had already paid Rs.34,500/- even then, respondents are now seeking to recover amount of Rs.1,27,825/- by charging interest at exorbitant rate which comes more than Rs.70,000/-. Learned counsel submitted that all of his retiral dues were withheld vide order dated 25/2/2005 and till date, respondents have not paid SBCWP NO.3783/06. 2 a single penny to the petitioner towards pension. Due amount of Rs.57,000/- which after deposit of Rs.34,500/- would be reduced to only Rs.22,500/- may have been recovered long ago. The demand of the respondents to recover amount of Rs.1,27,825/- is highly unreasonable. Respondents in reply to the writ petition did not disclose as to by what method they have clubbed the amount and on what rate of interest. It is therefore prayed that respondents be directed to pay to the petitioner terminal dues together with interest @18% p.a. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in absence of Provident Fund Department not being made a party, writ petition is not maintainable particularly when Cooperative Samiti Bharatpur is not a State. It is contended that however amount of Rs.57,000/- was not paid, interest of Rs.34,000/- attracted was also not satisfied to be recovered. Petitioner has alternate remedy of approaching the Registrar Cooperative Samiti Bharatpur for redressal of his grievance. Upon consideration of the arguments and perusal of the documents, I find that respondents did not dispute the fact that against the recovery order petitioner had deposited Rs.34,500/- and when the total amount was only Rs.57,000/- and remaining amount was Rs.22,500/-, recovery of amount of Rs.1,27,825/- cannot be said to be SBCWP NO.3783/06. 3 reasonable by any stretch of imagination. Withholding entire retiral benefits and the pension for a period for more than five years now was also highly unreasonable act on the part of the respondents. Although, it is true that they are entitled to recover the amount but then objection that the Cooperative Samiti Bharatpur is not a State, is liable to be rejected because Cooperative Samiti Bharatpur is an instrumentality of a State being under the control of the State Government and therefore it would definitely fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Another objection that Provident Fund Commissioner has not been impleaded as party respondent is also not sustainable because it was not Commissioner, who has stopped payment of pension or retiral dues to the petitioner, order has been passed by the Executive Officer of the Cooperative Samiti Bharatpur. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to adjust the amount of Rs.34,500/- against total due of Rs.57,000/- and charge interest on remaining amount of Rs.22,500/- under Section 74(2) from the date of order dated 27/3/1997 till the impugned-order dated 25/2/2005 was passed with interest @6% p.a. They are further directed to pay the entire amount of retiral dues and pension to the petitioner within a period of three months also with interest @6% p.a. SBCWP NO.3783/06. 4 Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil