Joginder Singh vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation

Sanjay Karol, Judge

Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: 1. That the memo dated 23.12.2009 at Annexure P-5 to the extent that pension and DCRG have been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner without any interest thereon and recoveries of Rs. 51,887/- have been ordered to be made from the DCRG, may kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of justice.

That the office order dated 13.08.2010 at Annexure P-4 whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected, denying him interest on the delayed payments of pension and gratuity and recoveries of Rs. 51,887/- made from the DCRG have been held to be valid, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the claim of the petitioner for interest on the delayed payments of retiral benefits made kindly be allowed @ 12% per annum and the recoveries of Rs. 51,887/- made from the DCRG of the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside and the same amount may kindly be ordered to be refunded to the petitioner with interest.

It is not in dispute that petitioner retired on 31st March, 2009. Yet in spite of his repeated requests, respondents did not release his pensionary/retiral benefits.

Petitioner was constrained to approach this Court and in terms of judgment dated 23.3.2010 passed in CWP No. 4478 of 2009, titled as Joginder Singh versus H.R.T.C. and another, respondents were directed to decide is representation. Now, vide Office Order dated 13.8.2010 the same stands decided wherein following observations are made:

However, a perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner remained suspended on various occasions due to act of omission & commission and series of penalties were imposed upon him and necessary entries/corrections were required to be made in the record before allowing him pension and releasing retirement benefits which took time. The delay in allowing pension was also due to lengthy process involved in refixations of his pay on account grant of Sr. Scale of Rs. 1200-2100/- allowed w.e.f. 1.1.1986 to him by Hon''ble High Court of H.P. in C.W.P. (T) No. 2823/08 decided on 18.3.2009 and the petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2009. Secondly, the delay in payment of Pension/Gratuity amount occurred due to refixation of his pay after giving effect of penalty of reduction in pay to that of minimum of the time scale permanently vide order No. HO:9E-1027/86 (O) dated 31.07.89. The Petitioner also remained suspended w.e.f. 28.2.1986 to 23.4.1986 & no clear order was made as to whether the suspension period is to be counted towards pension and gratuity. The Service Book and connected record were required for making entries of allowing Sr. Scale, refixations of pay, detail of penalties imposed and refixation after giving effect of penalties and issuing recovery orders took some time. Only due to these factors, some delay has occurred in making payment of pension/gratuity. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. On receipt of the judgement dated 18.03.09 of Hon''ble High Court, the pay of Shri Joginder Singh, Sub Inspector was regulated on 18.12.09 which was regulated wrongly by way of not giving the effect of penalty w.e.f. 01/07/90. Consequently his pay was again re-fixed on 18.12.09 and due to this refixation, he was fixed at Rs. 1200/- w.e.f. 01.07.90 instead of Rs. 1230/- and due to this refixation a sum of Rs. 51,887/- comes to be recoverable due to over payment and the over payment of Rs. 51,887/- has been recovered from the gratuity of the said Shri Joginder Singh, Sub Inspector. The recovery of Rs. 51,887/- was effected due to the penalty and same cannot be refunded to him. Therefore the undersigned finds no force in the representation dated 14.5.2010 of the petitioner which is considered and rejected.

Significantly, respondents did not release the retiral benefits of the petitioner, within reasonable period of time. Also a sum of Rs. 51,887/- was recovered by them, without affording any adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This action of the respondents is absolutely arbitrary and illegal. It entails civil consequences. But fact of the matter is that this amount already stands recovered from the petitioner. As such, present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions to the respondents:

Respondents shall issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and after holding an inquiry, in accordance with law, pass a reasoned order with regard to recovery of a sum of Rs. 51,887/-. If it is ultimately found that this amount was not to be recovered from the petitioner, the same shall be released immediately alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date from which such recovery was effected. Inquiry shall positively be completed within a period of twelve weeks from today. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate and it is clarified that this Court shall not extend this period.

For the period for which there is delay on the part of the respondents in releasing the retiral benefits, other than the aforesaid amount, petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, which shall also be released within a period of eight weeks from today.

Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.