IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 424 of 2001 Decided on: December 5, 2008. H.S. Bist Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. & Anr. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Jeevesh Sharma Advocate with Mr. Inderjit Narwal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional A.G. Per Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Writ petitioner has sought judicial review of the order dated 14th December 2000, passed by H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 1682 of 1991, filed by the writ petitioner against the respondents, whereby the writ petition has though been allowed in part, major part of the relief sought by him, has been denied. 2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the writ petition are like this. Petitioner was in service of the State of Himachal Pradesh. He retired on 31st March 1989, on attaining the age of superannuation. His pension papers were submitted by the concerned department to the Accountant General. Deputy Accountant General, vide order dated 26th May 1989, Annexure Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… A-1, authorised payment of a sum of Rs. 47916/-, on account of death-cum-retirement gratuity, besides, monthly pension. This sanction order, Annexure A-1, was revised on 11.9.1889, Annexure A-2, and the amount of gratuity was raised to Rs. 54,451/- and the amount of pension was also increased. As per, Annexure A-2, a sum of Rs. 47,916/- which had already been paid to the petitioner had been adjusted against the revised amount of gratuity and only the remaining amount of Rs. 6534/- was to be paid after adjustment of money, if any, due from the writ petitioner on account of recoveries. Petitioner owed a sum of Rs. 805/-, on account of penal interest and Rs. 20,426/-, on account of interest on house building advance, which was required to be adjusted. Petitioner obtained clearance certificate from the Deputy Accountant General about his house building advance liability on 12.3.1996 and thereafter, petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 21,568/-. Besides, deducting the money, due on account of penal interest and interest of house building advance, respondent deducted a sum of Rs. 1,651/-, on account of miscellaneous recoveries. 3. When the petitioner was not paid the amount of gratuity despite issuance of Annexure A-2, dated 11.9.1989, he filed O.A. before the Tribunal, in the year 1991, seeking a direction that the amount of gratuity be directed to be paid to him alongwith interest. It was during the pendency of said O.A. that the petitioner obtained clearance certificate from the Accountant General in respect of house building advance and …3… thereafter the amount of gratuity, less the amount due from him, was paid. The petitioner claimed that he was entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 21,568/- paid to him after adjustment of interest of house building advance because there had been long delay in payment of the said balance amount of gratuity. He claimed that gratuity had been sanctioned on 11.9.1989, but payment had been released on 26th June 1996. He claimed interest for this entire period at the rate of 10%. 4. Learned Tribunal returned the finding that the respondents were not to blame for delay in releasing the amount, due to the petitioner. However, withholding of Rs. 1,651/-, on account of miscellaneous recoveries, was held to be not permissible and this amount was ordered to be paid to the petitioner, together with interest at the rate of 10% from 26th June 1996, the date when the amount due, according to the calculation of the respondents, was paid to the petitioner. 5. Writ petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for interest on the amount, which was paid to him, from the date of the sanction of gratuity i.e. 11.9.1989, to the date of release of the amount, i.e. 26.6.1996 and so, he has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record, including original sanction order of gratuity, Annexure A-1, the revised order of gratuity dated …4… 11.9.1989, Annexure A-2, as also the original application, which was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. 7. Original application, which the petitioner filed before the Tribunal, shows that he based his claim on Annexure A-2, and claimed that the amount of gratuity authorised, vide Annexure A-2, be ordered to be paid to him alongwith interest. He did not specify the amount of gratuity, sanctioned, vide Annexure A-2. A perusal of Annexure A-2, whereby sanction for revised gratuity was accorded by the Accountant General shows that the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity stood revised from Rs. 47,916/- sanctioned earlier vide letter, dated 26.5.1989, Annexure-A1 to Rs. 54,451/-. Annexure A-2, clearly mentioned in paras-10 and 15 that the petitioner had already been paid the amount of pre-revised gratuity, i.e. Rs. 47,916/-. The Accountant General authorised through, Annexure A-2, the payment of only a sum of Rs. 6,534/-, being the difference between the amount of revised gratuity and the gratuity sanctioned earlier, vide letter dated 26.5.1989. 8. Petitioner, as already noticed, did not specify in the original application, as to what amount was payable to him under the revised sanction, Annexure A-2. He simply stated that he was entitled to the amount of gratuity, as authorised, vide Annexure A-2. As stated hereinabove, the amount that was authorised to be paid to the petitioner through this, Annexure A-2, was the difference between the amount of revised gratuity and the amount of gratuity earlier sanctioned. This amount of …5… difference was worked out in, Annexure A-2 itself and stated to be Rs. 6,534/- only. Petitioner, no where stated in his original application that amount of Rs. 47,916/- sanctioned, vide letter dated 26th May 1989, had not been paid to him or that the revised sanction, Annexure-A2, wrongly recorded about the payment of Rs. 47,916/-. 9. From the aforesaid documents of the petitioner himself, it is clear that what was due to him under, Annexure A-2, which was the basis of his claim before the Tribunal, was only a sum of Rs. 6,534/-. Learned counsel representing the petitioner, when confronted with the aforesaid position, has submitted that the respondents themselves, vide statement Annexure R-4, calculated the amount payable to the petitioner at Rs. 21,568/- and paid the said amount, vide draft dated 26.6.1996. This statement or the payment of an amount of Rs. 21,568/- by the respondents to the petitioner does not in any way improve upon the factual position, as has been stated hereinabove, based on the petitioner’s own original application, as also the documents, on which his claim was based. 10. It is quite likely that the concerned official, while working out the amount payable to the petitioner, under Annexure A-2, did not go through, Annexure A-2, carefully nor did he take into account the earlier order of sanction of gratuity and pension, dated 26.5.1989, Annexure A-1 and the factum of the payment of amount of gratuity mentioned in said letter, dated 26.5.1989, Annexure A-1, while preparing this statement, …6… Annexure R-4. We have every reason to presume so because as per column-3 of this statement, Annexure-R4, Annexure A-2, is shown to be the original sanction, whereas in fact original sanction was dated 26.5.1989, Annexure A-1 and Annexure A- 2, was the revised sanction. 11. From the above stated position, it appears that petitioner has been wrongly paid by the respondents an amount of money, which was not due to him. It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs. 20,917/- was deductible from the amount of gratuity, that was authorised to be paid, vide Annexure A-2 and what was authorised to be paid, vide Annexure A-2, was a sum of Rs. 6,534/- only. That means the entire amount of money authorised, vide Annexure A-2, was liable to be adjusted against the money, due from the petitioner and not only this, the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 13,500/- approximately, in addition to that on account of recovery of interest of house building advance. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), J. December 5, 2008(vs) ( Surjit Singh ), J.