IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8577 of 2007 Date of decision: January 30, 2009 Biram Dass ... Petitioner Versus UHBVNL & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for 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) This writ petition has been filed for claiming retiral dues on the ground that the petitioner had retired on 28.02.2005 but only his Provident Fund was released and other retiral dues were not released to him. In written statement it was alleged that the retiral dues could not be released because firstly, the service book of the petitioner was not complete, secondly some recoveries had to be made and thirdly that a charge-sheet dated 23.06.2005 had been issued against the petitioner. It was further, mentioned that after the filing of the writ petition provisional pension was granted to the petitioner @ 75%, arrears thereof paid vide cheque dt. 04.09.2007 and that thereafter the petitioner is CWP No.8577 of 2007 -2- getting provisional pension. It is not disputed that recovery/ies sought to be effected have been worked out unilaterally. No notice or charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner before ordering those recoveries. In Ram Narain Dua versus DHBVNL & others reported as 2007(1) SCT 161 the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: “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 somewhat similar circumstances, this Court has earlier also in the case of Hans Raj Sharma versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & others, 2004(4) SCT 117 (P&H) : CWP No.152 of 2004, decided on 28.10.2004, had allowed the writ petition by following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.R. Naik versus 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 this view of the matter, neither the recoveries should be made nor any punishment order be issued for the charge-sheet dated 23.06.2005. Taking into consideration all the facts of the case, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the entire retiral benefits of the petitioner. For those benefits which are yet to be released and for those benefits which CWP No.8577 of 2007 -3- may have been released, the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @8% per annum from the date of accrual to the date of payment. The payment of all arrears will be made within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the payment is not made in the said period then further interest @ 8% per month on the amount of interest also would be payable to the petitioner. It is further made clear that the respondents will have the right to initiate proceedings for making the recoveries in accordance with law. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. January 30, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE