IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 6725 of 2010-G Date of Decision : December 14, 2011 Chain Singh s/o Sh. Rasal Singh, Resident of Ward No. 9 Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., retired Tehsildar Office of Deputy Commissioner DC (R & R) Raja Ka Talab District Kangra, H.P. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of H.P. Through Secretary FC-cum-Secretary (Revenue), Shimla, H.P. 2. The Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. Respondents Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondent No. 1. Mr. Varun Chandel, Advocate, vice Mr. Sandeep Sharma, ASGI, for respondent No. 2. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to release the salary of the petitioner for the period from 01.12.2002 to 07.05.2003 with penal interest @ 18% per annum, in the interest of justice. (ii) That the respondents may also be directed to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner including pension, DCRG, leave encashment etc. from due date with penal interest @ 18% per annum. (iii) That the respondent No. 1 may also be burdened with the costs of the petition. (iv) That the entire record of the case may very kindly be summoned from the respondents for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. (v) That any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.” 2. In the body of the petition, petitioner failed to disclose that certain disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. It was in this background, believing the averments made by the petitioner to be true, that the following order was passed by the Court on 23.2.2011:- “Due and admissible benefits to the petitioner, if not already disbursed, shall be disbursed within one month from today. Post for further orders on 1.4.2011.” 3 3. Affidavit dated 14.10.2011 filed by the Under Secretary (Revenue) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh reveals that the amount, as prayed for by the petitioner, already stands released notwithstanding the fact that disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. 4. Be that as it may be, in the aforesaid background, in my considered view, petitioner is not entitled to interest in view of pendency of such proceedings. Hence no other and further orders can be passed in the present petition save and except that respondent shall complete the disciplinary proceedings expeditiously, in accordance with law, and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. Subject to the outcome of such proceedings, all other payments due and admissible, if any, and otherwise liable to be released be so done within the aforesaid period. If however some amounts are found to be recoverable from the petitioner the same be also done after notice to him. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. December 14 , 2011 (PK)