IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.: 5384 of 2008 Date of decision: 17.8.2010 Karam Chand … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents No.1 & 2: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. For the respondents No.3 & 4: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondent No.5: Mr. Ashwani Pathak, CGSC. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed for the following amongst other reliefs:- (i) That respondents No.3 and 4 may kindly be directed to pay the deputation allowances of the applicant for a period from 18.6.1991 to 17.6.1993; (ii) That the respondents No.3 and 4 may kindly be directed to pay the interest 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 amount of Rs.9724/- as levied by respondent No.5; (iii) That respondent No.5 may kindly be directed to release a sum of Rs.10,000/- which has been withheld from DCRG of the applicant; (iv) That the respondents No. 3 to 5 may further be directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount/amounts withheld by them. (v) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on account of retiral benefits amounting to Rs.3,23,087/- which has been wrongly and illegally withheld by the respondents from 30th June, 1997 till it is actually paid to the applicant. 2. It is not disputed that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was released in favour of the petitioner on 4.12.1998. Similarly, it is also not disputed that the amount of Rs.3,23,087 has been paid to the petitioner. Therefore, reliefs No. 3 and 5 do not survive. 3. As far as relief No.1 is concerned, the only defence raised by the Electricity Board is that the 3 deputation allowance of the petitioner was withheld for want of extension in deputation period from the Education Department. He was on deputation at Giri Project School which was being run by the HPSEB. The petitioner as noted above retired in the year 1997 and if the Education Department has not taken any action for the past 13 years it would not be unreasonable to presume that the education department has no objection to the petitioner being on deputation with the Board. Therefore, it is directed that there shall be deemed sanction on behalf of the education department and the respondent-Board shall release the deputation allowance for the period 18.6.1991 to 17.6.1993 forthwith. 4. The reply filed by the office of the Accountant General shows that due to late submission of DCRG and other dues payable to the petitioner, the office of the Accountant General itself levied a penalty of Rs.9724/- upon the Board. This amount was to be paid to the claimant. I see no reason why the petitioner should be deprived of this amount. 5. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the respondent-Board is directed to pay the deputation allowance for the period 18.6.1991 to 4 17.6.1993 alongwith penal interest of Rs.9724/- to the petitioner on or before 30th November, 2010 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of retirement of the petitioner till amount is paid to him. In case the amount is not paid on or before 30th November, 2010 the same shall be payable with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of retirement of the petitioner. No order as to costs. 17th August, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.