IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1762 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision : February 14, 2011 Partap Singh ....Appellant Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The appellant succeeded before the learned Single Judge as is evident from the judgment dated 16.8.2010 in as much as the recoveries sought to be made from him without any opportunity of hearing and after his retirement have been quashed except a sum of Rs.2,816/-, which has been recovered on account of penal action in connection with the departmental proceedings. 2. The only prayer made in the instant appeal is for the grant of interest on account of delayed payment as the appellant-petitioner has claimed that he retired from service on 31.7.2005 and the provisional CWP No. 1762 of 2010(O&M -2- pension was paid at the rate of 75% whereas other retiral benefits were withheld. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at some length and find that the prayer for interest is wholly devoid of any merit. 4. It has come on record that while in service, the petitioner- appellant was placed under suspension on 15.5.2001 (P-2) and was reinstated on 15.10.2001 (P-3) without prejudice to the departmental proceedings. Accordingly, order dated 25.4.2006 (P-5) was passed for recovery of withholding of one increment without future effect. Vide order dated 18.9.2009 (P-16), an amount of Rs. 5,02,412/- was sought to be recovered on account of shortage of various items. The aforesaid orders having been passed after retirement of the appellant-petitioner, the learned Single Judge has quashed the same except in respect of recovery of Rs.2816/- as recovery equivalent to one annual increment, which was stopped without future effect. Firstly, the appellant- petitioner did not request the learned Single Judge for grant of interest and the same plea cannot be raised for the first time before the Letters Patent Bench. Secondly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be said that the respondents were wholly unjustified in delaying the payment. There were disciplinary proceedings initiated and pending. Even other shortages were found by the department, which were required to be explained at the end of the service by appellant-petitioner. However, it was found that no such recovery could CWP No. 1762 of 2010(O&M -3- be made because no notice or charge-sheet was issued before his retirement and, therefore, the prayer for interest is wholly unwarranted. 4. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S.MANN ) February 14, 2011 JUDGE ajay-I