LPA No.1816 of 2011 (O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1816 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.9.2011 State of Punjab and others ....Petitioners Versus Veena Rani .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl.A.G, Punjab. JASWANT SINGH, J C.M.No.4879 of 2011 Application is allowed. Delay of 80 days in filing the appeal for the reasons stated in the application accompanied by an affidavit, is condoned. LPA No.1816 of 2011 Appellants-State of Punjab and its Officers, who were respondents in the Civil Writ Petition No.13195 of 2009, have filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment dated 15.2.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge vide which they have been directed to release the unpaid pensionary/retiral benefits to the writ petitioner- Veena Rani within a period of three months along with statutory interests on delayed payment of DCRG and GPF as well as interest at the rate of 6% on other retiral/pensionary benefits; with a further LPA No.1816 of 2011 (O&M) #2# direction to sanction the family pension and pay the arrears within the aforesaid period in accordance with law. Appellants are aggrieved against the abovesaid directions and it is submitted on their behalf that in fact Bahadur Singh-husband (since deceased) of the writ-petitioner, namely, Veena Rani borrowed a loan under two different heads from the appellants-State of Punjab i.e (i) Rs.87000/- for house building advance (HBA) and (ii) Rs.1,50,000/- for addition/alteration of house. Learned state counsel argues that as per the report submitted by Chief Engineer/Vigilance-cum-Quality Control Irrigation Works, Punjab Chandigarh, the said amount had not been utilized for the intended purposes and as such the writ petitioner is not entitled to take the benefit of writing off the outstanding loan on the basis of letter dated 12.12.1979 (P.5) and circular dated 21.6.1988 (P.6) and thus the finding of learned Single Judge has wrongly been recorded to the effect that the State Government has taken a decision to write off such loan and interest thereon and as such the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper book, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same deserves dismissal. It is an admitted fact that the husband of the writ petitioner, who was working with the appellants as a Clerk, died on 31.1.2008 while in service. It is also an admitted fact in the reply by way of short LPA No.1816 of 2011 (O&M) #3# affidavit dated 18.12.2009 of Jaswant Singh, Executive Engineer, SYL Project Punjab, Chandigarh on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the writ petition that out of Rs.87000/- borrowed on account of House Building Advance, the appellants had already recovered an amount of Rs.77400/- as principal component. So far as the loan on account of addition and alteration of house is concerned, the appellants have already recovered an amount of Rs.1,19000/- as Principal amount out of Rs.1,80000/-. The relevant portion of para 6 of the said reply reads as under: “6. That the following payments were recoverable from the husband of the petitioner: 1. Chief Engineer/Irr. Works, Punjab, Letter No.17566/5Admn/09 dated 30.11.2009 Net a) House Building Advance Rs.87,000/- Already recovered (-) Rs.77,400/- --------------- Balance to be recovered: Rs. 9,600/- Interest on HBL Rs.65,685/- Total Rs.75,285/- Rs.75,285/- b) Addition & Alteration of House: Rs.1,80,000/- Already recovered (-) Rs.1,19,000/- Balance Rs.61,000/- Interest on this advance Rs.1,01,475/- ------------------- Rs.1,62,475/- ------------------ A perusal of para 6 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants clearly reveals that the husband of the writ-petitioner was regularly paying the borrowed amount of loan to the appellants, which LPA No.1816 of 2011 (O&M) #4# had been accepted by the appellants-State of Punjab during his life time without any objection. Now at this stage, after the death of the husband of the writ-petitioner the stand taken by the appellants that the said loan amount taken on two counts has not been utilized for the intended purposes is an after thought and just to deprive the writ-petitioner of the benefit of letter dated 12.12.1979 (P.5) and circular dated 21.6.1988 (P.6) issued by the Government of Punjab and as such no illegality is found in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 15.2.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference under Clause X of the Letters Patent. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) (JASWANT SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE September 28, 2011 manoj