C.W.P. No.380 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.380 of 2008 Date of Decision:29.03.2010 Moji Ram s/o Sh. Chandgi Ram ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Haryana, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana for respondent Nos.1 and 5. Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition seeks for release of pension, gratuity and leave encashment payable to the petitioner along with interest @18%. The grievance of the petitioner is that they had been wrongly withheld. During the pendency of the writ petition, one half amount appears to have been paid by the respondents namely Rs.6,12,416/- and on direction of this Hon'ble Court, the respondents have constituted an enquiry relating to some recovery that was sought to be made. The petitioner has given a reply to the notice C.W.P. No.380 of 2008 -2- issued to show cause against such recovery and it appears that the petitioner has also given an additional reply. Learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board submitted that the officer, who was required to consider the reply on the show cause notice has since been transferred and the decision shall soon be taken after an incumbent assumes office. Any decision that may be taken as regards the decision for withholding the amount or otherwise, shall only give place to an independent cause of action, which cannot be decided in this case without affording to parties an opportunity to either affirm or contest the decision that may be taken by the competent authority. 2. In view of the subsequent developments, which have taken place, I deem it appropriate now to give liberty to the petitioner to challenge any order that may be passed by the authority on the show cause notice which has been issued against the amount assessed by them to find the amount equivalent to the loss caused by the petitioner and if the reply is accepted, the authorities shall be bound to release the amount of what is withheld by them. By the delay in disbursement, they shall also become liable for interest. On the other hand, if any decision is taken which is adverse to the petitioner, the petitioner shall have liberty to challenge the same by appropriate proceedings. 3. The petitioner submits that even in respect of the amount, which has been released by orders subsequent to the writ petition, there had been already two years delay in disbursal and the Electricity Board is bound to pay interest for the same. The State C.W.P. No.380 of 2008 -3- Government circulars relating to the period within which the terminal benefits have to be given and the liability for interest for delayed disbursals have been incorporated also in Electricity Board Regulations and the petitioner may make appropriate representation with reference to payment of interest with reference to the relevant Rules and Regulations and the competent authority, which shall now take the decision for the recovery sought to be made, shall decide also on the issue about entitlement of the petitioner to interest for delayed disbursal already effected. The petitioner shall have similar right of challenge as indicated above also as regards the finding regarding his entitlement of interest. 4. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 29, 2010 Pankaj*`