C.W.P No. 7095 of 2004 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 7095 of 2004 Date of decision : January 15, 2009 Phoolwati ...... Petitioner (s) v. Uttar Haryana Vidut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. D.S.Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rajneesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the husband of the petitioner retired from service in 1995 and died in 2002 but uptill his death, full retiral dues had not been released to him. In the written statement, it is pleaded that a letter, Annexure R- 1/3 was issued to the late husband of the petitioner asking him to reconcile various anomalies but as there was no response, a cut of Rs.96,799.56 had to be made in his pension. C.W.P No. 7095 of 2004 ::2:: In my opinion, the letter (Annexure R-1/3) is absolutely vague. It merely refers to some other outstanding dues amounting to Rs.4737/-. It can not be said that there was any notice issued to the late husband of the petitioner that a huge amount of Rs.96,799.56 was recoverable from him. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Narain Dua vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd and others, 2007(3) SLR 546, wherein it was held as follows:- “2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the respondents could not have withheld any amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner on account of allegation which have emanated after the date of his retirement. Such a course is not available to the respondents. In some what similar circumstances, this Court has earlier also in the case of Hans Raj Sharma v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others (Civil Writ Petition No.152 of 2004, decided on October 28, 2004) has allowed the writ petition by following the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in P.R.Naik v. Union of India, AIR 1972 SC 554. It has been laid down in the aforementioned judgment that issuance of charge-sheet for initiation of departmental inquiry is a sine qua non.” In my opinion, this case is squarely covered by the dictum of law laid down in Ram Narain Dua's case (supra). In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the balance amount of Rs.96,799.56 and C.W.P No. 7095 of 2004 ::3:: other pending superannuation benefits of the petitioner's late husband within a period of one month from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the payment is not made to the petitioner within the stipulated period, such amount will carry interest @ 8% p.a from the date of its accrual till the date of actual payment. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 15, 2009. JUDGE `kk'