IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 18278 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 13, 2011 Partap Singh and another …Petitioners Versus Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR, J.J.J.J. 1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed primarily with the grievance that the respondents have illegally withheld the amount of `80,334/- and `17,374/- from the retiral benefits of the petitioners on the allegation that there was shortage of oil and breakages of the parts of transformers, which were returned by them to the store and for which they ought to have applied for being written-off during the service. It is claimed that after retirement the said amount of recovery could not have been written-off. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to release the withheld CWP No. 18278 of 2010 2 amount of retiral benefits along with interest @ 12% on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. 2. Nobody has put appearance on behalf of the petitioners. However, having heard learned counsel the respondents and perusing the paper book we find that petitioner No. 1 retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.2007, whereas petitioner No. 2 superannuated w.e.f. 31.3.2006. It is evident that no show cause notice or charge- sheet/disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioners for making recovery of aforementioned amount before the date of their retirement. Even no such details are available showing that any notice was issued to them. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the respondents could not have withheld any amount of retiral benefits payable to the petitioners on account of the allegations which have emanated after the date of retirement. Such a course is not available to the respondents. 3. We are further of the view that the controversy raised in the instant petition is no longer res integra. In some what similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (M.M. Kumar, J.) was a member, allowed CWP No. 7046 of 2008 (Devi Dayal v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. And others) vide judgment dated 11.9.2008. In that case, the Division Bench placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of P.R. Naik P.R. Naik P.R. Naik P.R. Naik v. v. v. v. Union of India Union of India Union of India Union of India, AIR 1972 SC 554 , AIR 1972 SC 554 , AIR 1972 SC 554 , AIR 1972 SC 554 as well as a Division Bench judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of Hans Raj Sharma Hans Raj Sharma Hans Raj Sharma Hans Raj Sharma v. v. v. v. Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others others others others (CWP No. 152 of 2004, decided on Ju (CWP No. 152 of 2004, decided on Ju (CWP No. 152 of 2004, decided on Ju (CWP No. 152 of 2004, decided on July 29, 2004) ly 29, 2004) ly 29, 2004) ly 29, 2004) and Ram Ram Ram Ram CWP No. 18278 of 2010 3 Narain Dua Narain Dua Narain Dua Narain Dua v. v. v. v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, , , , 2007 (1) RSJ 402 2007 (1) RSJ 402 2007 (1) RSJ 402 2007 (1) RSJ 402. 4. In view of the above, we allow the instant petition and quash the impugned action of the respondents in deducting the amount of `80,334/- and `17,374/- from the retiral benefits of the petitioners. We further direct the respondents to release the amount recovered to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. In case the needful is not done within one month then the petitioners shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the amount is payable till its actual payment. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) (GURDEV SINGH) (GURDEV SINGH) (GURDEV SINGH) July 1 July 1 July 1 July 13, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor