1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No.9113 of 2008 Date of decision: 17.3.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Banwari Lal Verma .....Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh .....Respondent. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Hem Raj Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7 (a) to (d): “(a). Final order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 8.2.2011 vide Annexure A-4 may kindly be quashed. . (b). Retirement Gratuity may be deemed to have fallen due on the date of retirement of applicant i.e. on 30.9.1999 and the applicant may be allowed interest at the rate of 21% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity till its payment i.e. March/April 2001,(18 months). (c) The Govt in the Finance Deptt. may be ordered to release the commutation of pension at 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 once for which requisite papers were sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, on 8.9.1999 and this has not be4den paid although a period of more than 2 ½ years stand elapsed. (d) The following recoveries which were got effected by the Deptt. illegally may kindly be ordered to be refunded. (i) Recovery made in respect of Rs. 1198/- allowance for transportation of personal effects. (ii) Penal interest of HBA charged Rs. 948/- by the Deptt. due to late payment of retirement gratuity. Worked by the A.G. Rs.182.00 Worked by the Deptt. Rs.766.00 ___________ Total Rs. 948.00 Total Rs. 2146/- 2. In reply, the respondent has taken the following stand vide para 6(ii) to (iv) :- “ (ii) Applicant was served a charge sheet under rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 vide memo, No. Fin)TR)b(4)-13/84 Dated 8.6.1998 (R-I). Imputation of charge was that he did not hire the truck from Dharamshala to Nahan for the carriage of his personal effects for which he claimed Rs.2000/- vide GR No.837 dated 27.11.1991 ( R-III) on his transfer to the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Nahan. An inquiry was conducted to ascertain the veracity of claim. After going through the inquiry report, disciplinary authority decided to effect recovery of Rs. 1190/- received by applicant as he failed to prove hiring of vehicle for which he submitted aforementioned 3 Goods Receipt. His claim was, therefore not considered legitimate and a penalty of recovery of actual amount of Rs.1190/- received by him was imposed vide Order No. Fin(TR)B (4)-13/84 dated 8.2.2001 (R-III). Accordingly, actual amount of Rs. 1190/- was ordered to be recovered from his retirement Gratuity vide this department order No.Fin(TR)B(4)-13/84 dated 19.3.2001 ( R-IV). (iii) Applicant had availed House Building Advance of Rs.96000/-. Out of this loan, an amount of Rs.4700/- was recoverable at the time of his retirement. Since he was facing a departmental case, as such, Gratuity was not payable to the applicant till the conclusion of the case. This case was decided vide order No. Fin(TR) B (4)-13/84 dated 8.2.2001. As such the remaining amount of Principal i.e. Rs.4700/- remained un-recovered upto 3/2001. Therefore, a sum of Rs.766/- was recovered from the applicant as interest for the period from 1.10.1000 to 1/2001. Accordingly an amount of Rs.45,640/- (Rs.44784+766) was recovered from his Gratuity being interest alongwith Principal Rs.4700/- vide Order No. Fin(TR)B(4)-13/84 dated 19.3.2001. iv) Departmental proceedings against the applicant were instituted vide Order No. Fin(TR)B(4)-13/84 dated 9.3.1999 (R-V) while he was in Government service. Therefore, provisions of rule 9 of Central Civil services Pension Rules, 1972 were not applicable in his case. In view of this, the claim of the applicant is not tenable.” 3. Rejoinder refuting the above stand taken on behalf of 4 the respondent and reiterating the averments set up in the petition has been filed. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioner making a detailed representation supported by documents along with copy of this judgment to the respondent within one month from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the said respondent within two months thereafter in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 5. The petition, so also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 17th March, 2011. (jai)