IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 7343 of 2008. Reserved on: 09.12.2010. Decided on: 15.12. 2010. _____________________________________________________ Chanchal Mahindru. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : None. For respondents No. 1,2 and 4. : Mr. R.P. Singh and Mr. J.s. Guleria, Assistant Advocate Generals. For respondent No. 3. : Mr. T.C. Sharma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner has retired from Government Senior Secondary School (Boys), Mandi as Language Teacher on 31.12.1999. According to the petitioner, there is delay in payment of `46,712/- from her D.C.R.G., leave encashment, G.I.S. and commuted pension. She has claimed interest on delayed payment of D.C.R.G., which was paid to her on 11.05.2000, 21.01.2001 and 15.03.2003. She had claimed only an amount of `16, 815/- with interest @ 12% per annum. Her leave encashment has been released on 14.05.2001 after a delay of five months. The G.I.S. has been paid to the petitioner on 31.01.2001 after a period of thirteen months. The 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - commuted pension has been paid to the petitioner on 04.04.2000 and 05.01.2001 and there is delay of 275 days. 2. Case of the respondent-State, in a nut-shell, is that petitioner herself has made a written request for not releasing the retiral benefits till the decision on her application. The deduction purportedly has been made for over-payment of salary from January, 1986 to December, 1999. Petitioner has neither been served with a show-cause notice nor she was heard before the decision was taken to make deductions from her D.C.R.G.. She ought to have been heard before taking the decision to effect the recoveries. Unilateral action of the respondents to deduct the amount from the D.C.R.G. of the petitioner without hearing her was unreasonable and arbitrary. Admittedly, there is delay in making the payments of D.C.R.G., leave encashment, G.I.S. and commuted pension. The reasons given for delay in making the payments are not sustainable. The petitioner was not at all responsible for the delay. The delay has been caused by the respondents themselves. 3. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner a sum of `46,712/- deducted from her D.C.R.G. with interest as per Rule 68 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 read with instruction No. (ii) appended thereto. Petitioner is also entitled to interest in the similar manner on the delayed payment of D.C.R.G., as per the details given hereinabove. She is also held entitled to simple interest @ ` 7% per annum on the delayed payments of leave encashment, G.I.S. and commuted pension. These amounts are - 3 - directed to be released to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 15, 2010. (bhupender) - 4 - `