IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No.3822/2008 (OA No. 1573/96) Date of Decision : March 12, 2009 Sh. B.K. Verma Petitioner Versus H.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board. Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajneesh Maniktala, Advocate, with Mr. Vikrant Thakur vice counsel for Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Rita Goswami, Advocate, for the respondent. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia praying for the following reliefs: “(i) Respondent may be directed to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the leave encashment amount of Rs. 24,582/- which was released on 29.9.93. (ii) Respondent may be directed to release the full amount of gratuity to the applicant. (iii) Respondent may be directed to pay an interest @ 18% on the amount of gratuity which was illegally with-held for about four years. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The petitioner was lastly employed with the respondent-Board as Assistant Supervisor. He retired on 31.8.1991 and his retiremental benefits were not disbursed with in a reasonable time. The respondent has filed reply to the petition from which it is evident that the personal file of the petitioner was misplaced in the office of the respondent-Board and consequently the matter of leave encashment could not be ascertained and verified. The respondent however collated the material from the field agencies and also asked the petitioner to file an affidavit. Affidavit (Annexure R-5) was filed by the petitioner stating that he had not availed even a single day’s earned leave w.e.f. January 1980 and onward while serving with the board. The contents of the affidavit were got verified from the field agencies and the places of posting of the petitioner and it was so found that the same were incorrect. This is also evident from letter Annexure R-6 which shows that the petitioner did avail leave in the year 1985. The amount towards retiremental benefits was however calculated and paid to the petitioner on 18.9.1993. The petitioner has prayed for payment of interest on the same. The fact of the matter is that between August 1991 and atleast 24.7.1992, the date on which the petitioner furnished his affidavit (Annexure R-5), he cannot be faulted. The file was misplaced by the respondents in their office. Between 1991 and 1992 there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner had, in any manner, faulted or had not complied with any of the 3 procedural formalities before his retirement. Thus, for the said period I see no reason as to why interest as prayed for be not awarded. Papers for retiremental benefits are required to be prepared well in advance, much prior to the date of retirement. Why, it was not so done, is also not evident from the record. However, for the period July, 1992, up to the date of payment it cannot be said that the information submitted by the petitioner was correct. In this view of the matter with effect from 1st September, 1991 upto 30th June, 1992, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 18% on Rs. 24,582/- being the leave encashment amount. With regard to the payment of gratuity the respondent has explained that the petitioner was not entitled to gratuity at all but however the matter with regard to the same came up for consideration before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 319 of 1994 titled as Sh. B.L. Pirta versus Himachal Pradesh Khadi & village Industries Board and another which was decided on 20.3.1995. Pursuant to the said decision the benefits of gratuity were decided to be conferred upon the petitioner and other similarly situated persons. The total amount of gratuity worked out was Rs. 23,784/-. Petitioner was issued a letter dated 24.6.1983 asking him to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,087/- towards the sales which he had made during the period 1980-81 and 1984-86 on credit, in contravention of the Rules, without obtaining orders from the Board. Since he failed to 4 deposit the said amount hence while disbursing the amount of gratuity the aforesaid amount was deducted and balance payment of Rs. 11,697/- was disbursed on 3.4.1996. Undoubtedly nothing has been placed on record to show as to whether any disciplinary proceedings for determination of his misconduct/fault before fastening the liability were initiated but, however, it is a matter of record that the contents of Para 6(iv) and (v) of the reply incorporating the said plea has also not been denied by the petitioner. Infact letter dated 27.5.1996 (Annexure A-1) informed the petitioner the reason for deduction and the contents thereof, in principle are not disputed by him. Therefore, in my considered view the prayer clauses (ii) and (iii) cannot be allowed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the authorities and submit his explanation with regard to the same. If however, ultimately it is found that the petitioner had not been negligent or willfully defaulted in complying with the Rules the remaining amount along with interest as prayed for shall be disbursed to the petitioner. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 12, 2009 (PK)