IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4354/2008 (OA 1001/97) Date of Decision : April 30, 2009 Sh. Gur Parshad Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh, through the Secretary, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Vidyuat Bhawan, Shimla-4 and others. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. T. S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondent : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) While working as Executive Engineer, the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 1700/- on 1.1.1978. A further step up was given to him w.e.f. 1.12.1978, revising his pay from Rs. 1775/- to Rs. 1925/-. This is so evident from office order dated 26.4.1983 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner continued to avail the said benefits till the year 1993 when in terms of office order dated 18.3.1993 (Annexure P-2) there was a downward revision of his pay which was 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 reduced to Rs. 1700/- w.e.f. 1.1.1978 and Rs. 1775/- w.e.f. 1.12.1978. The petitioner approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and in terms of order dated 5.5.1993 passed in OA No. 762/1993, titled as Gurparshad versus The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case on merits. Thereafter the respondents, vide order dated 26.5.1995 refixed the petitioner’s pay at Rs. 1700/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.1978 and Rs. 1850/- per month w.e.f. 25.11.1978. Importantly the petitioner was not associated before passing of the said order. The total amount disbursed to the petitioner, in excess of his entitlement, between 1983 and 1993 is Rs. 18,668/-. The amount was released apparently due to wrong interpretation of various orders issued by the Board/Government from time to time. Why the respondents did not take effective remedial measures within reasonable time has not been explained by them. Apparently the mistake was discovered after a period of one decade and the remedial action was taken. The amount stood disbursed to the petitioner after decision was taken in consultation with the finance department of the respondent/board. Petitioner undoubtedly cannot be faulted for erroneous fixation of his pay and release of the same. The petition was filed in the year 1997. The petitioner has retired on 28.2.1993. 3 The petitioner had continuously received the said benefit. It is not that he was associated with the revision of his pay scale to gain monetary benefits and advantages. The error in interpreting and applying the Rules was that of the officers of the respondent- Board. The amount involved is 18,668/-. The petitioner has discharged his duties to the satisfaction of all. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, since the amount was received by the petitioner without any fault on his part, it would be only just, fair and proper that the same be not recovered from him. While taking this view, I am supported by the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Shyam Babu Verma & others versus Union of India & others, (1994) 2 SCC 521; Purshotam Lal Das & others versus State of Bihar & Others (2006) 11 SCC 492 and Sahib Ram versus State of Haryana (1995) Supp 1 SCC 18. During the pendency of the petition the aforesaid amount was recovered from the petitioner’s gratuity. As such the respondents are directed to release the same immediately. The petitioner retired on 28.2.1993. The amount of his gratuity was released only on 14.6.1995 and that too after deducting the aforesaid amount. The only reason for non release of the same is that Rs. 18,668/- was due from him. The respondents did deduct the amount before disbursing the remaining amount of gratuity to the petitioner. The same could have been done in April, 4 1993 itself. Why the same was not done has not been sufficiently explained. There are no justifiable reasons. The Apex Court in State of Punjab v. K. R. Erry and Sobhag Rai Mehta, AIR 1973 SC 834, as also in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356, has held that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Govt. to its employees on their retirement but have become valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest. Keeping in view the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as also the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Apex Court the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on such amount which stood released to him on 14.6.1995. With the aforesaid observations the present petition stands allowed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 30, 2009 (PK)