RSA No.2 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2 of 2011 (O&M). Decided on: May 18, 2011. State of Punjab and others. .. Appellants VERSUS Krishan Kumar. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.N.S.Pawar, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr.A.K.Walia, Advocate, for the respondent. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Suit of the plaintiff-respondent for declaration that he is entitled to 100 per cent provisional pension under Rule 9.9 and 9.14, of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, Part II, besides the benefit of leave encashment stands decreed by the Courts . . . 1 RSA No.2 of 2011 (O&M) below. The suit has been decreed holding that though the gratuity can be withheld but the leave encashment and other retiral benefits deserve to be released. Counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the plaintiff, prima facie, is guilty of having caused loss to the Government to the tune of 40,24,055/-. I have heard the counsel for the appellants as well as counsel for the respondent. The plaintiff-respondent has retired on 31.07.2006, as Assistant Food and Supply Officer. He had been allowed the release of 75 per cent of provisional pension initially and now 100 per cent provisional pension has been sanctioned and released. The short question which was required to be determined by the Court below is whether the enquiry regarding recovery of any loss could be initiated after 4 years as per Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, Part II. In the present case, the loss which is alleged to have been caused pertains to period to the years 1991 to 2001, and the show cause notice to recover the said amount was issued to the plaintiff-respondent on 01.08.2006, after the date of retirement. It has been argued by the counsel for the appellants that an order for recovery of approximately ` 9 lacs passed against the plaintiff which is yet to be recovered. After hearing the counsel for the appellants as well as the counsel for the respondent and going through the facts and . . . 2 RSA No.2 of 2011 (O&M) circumstances of this case, I am of the considered opinion that there is no ground to interfere in the order passed by the lower appellate Court to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to the disbursal of the retiral benefits except the gratuity. So far as the order regarding recovery of ` 9 lacs, having been passed against the plaintiff, is concerned, he has got an independent remedy to challenge the same, but I do not find any ground to interfere in the finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below that the recovery can be effected for the alleged events which are more than 4 years old as per Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, Part II. Without prejudice to the rights of the appellants to effect recoveries, in accordance with procedure of law, this appeal is dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE May 18, 2011. rka . . . 3