CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Ram Lok Sood vs State of H.P.

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 27 October 2010 · Citation: (2010) 10 SHI CK 0363

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kurian Joseph, C.J · Kuldip Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 — Rule 4 · Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 — Rule 69
CASE NUMBER
CWP (T) No. 5516 of 2008
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 379 words

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

(i) That the Respondent may please be directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount of Rs. 1,04,976/ - w.e.f. 1.9.1994 till 8.9.1997.

(ii) That the Respondent be also directed to pay the damages at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount due or any other amount as this Hon''ble Tribunal deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2.

In the preliminary objections of the reply at paras 1 and 2, it is stated as follows:

1.

The applicant retired from Government Service on 31.8.94 and on that date he was facing common proceedings in Kainthla Commission of Enquiry and as such the amount of DCRG was not released as per provisions contained in Rule 69(e) of CCS(Pension) Rules 1972. Similarly, the application for commutation of pension was sent to the Sr. Dy. Accountant General, HP on receipt of final orders in the inquiry as per provisions contained in Rule 4 of Chapter II of CCS and (Commutation of Pension Rules, 1981).

2.

The final decision in the enquiry was received on 21.5.97. According to the findings of the Inquiring Authority the applicant has been ordered to be exonerated and the sanction order to release the DCRG was accordingly issued on 30.6.97 to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) with a copy to the retiree, for making further payment to the applicant and no intentional delay was made to release the DCRG and as such the applicant is not entitled for the interest.

3.

In case the Petitioner as any dispute with regard to the factual and legal position, as stated above, it will be open to the Petitioner to pursue the same in appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum. However, we make it clear that in case the Petitioner initiates such steps within a period of one month from today, the same shall not be rejected on the only ground of delay. In the event of the Petitioner approaching the Government, the matter will be decided within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the Petitioner.

4.

The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.