Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 75 (HP)

HARI RAM v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2001-05-06

RAJIV SHARMA

body2001
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.:-The petitioner was appointed as Dak Runner in the Forest Department in the year 1956. He superannuated on 31.1.1998. He handed over the charge to one Sh. Murloo Ram, Forest Worker. The Range Officer, Nagar had submitted the report to the Divisional Forest Officer, Kullu showing certain shortages. On the basis of this report, a sum of Rs. 11,779/- was deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. He made representation to the higher authorities. The fact of the matter is that his grievance was not redressed. The respondents have not chosen to file reply to the petition and right to file the reply was closed by the Chairman of the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 24.3.1996. 2. Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate has strenuously argued that the action of the respondents of deducting a sum of Rs. 11,779/- from Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity was illegal and arbitrary. He then contended that the petitioner has been visited with civil and evil consequences and his client was required to be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard before ordering deduction of a sum of Rs. 11,779/- from the pensionery benefits. 3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the decision of the State whereby the recovery has been effected from the pensionery benefits of the petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. The petitioner has superannuated on 31.1.1998. He had handed over the charge to theconcerned person. The deductions have been made from the retiral benefits of the petitioner only on the basis of the report furnished by the Range Officer to Divisional Forest Officers. The petitioner was required to be heard before a sum of Rs. 11,779/- was deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner has been visited with civil and evil consequences after deducting a sum of Rs. 11,779/- from his retiral benefits. 6. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in Rajesh Kumar and others versus Dy. CIT and others, 2007 (2) SCC 181 that when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensure, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. Their Lordships have held as under: “26. Effect of civil consequences arising out of determination of lis under a statute is stated in State of Orissa v. Dr. Their Lordships have held as under: “26. Effect of civil consequences arising out of determination of lis under a statute is stated in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. (1967 (2) SCR 625). It is an authority for the proposition when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down in this behalf compliance of principles of natural justice would be implicit. In case of denial of principles of natural justice in a statute, the same may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.” 7. In a recent pronouncement, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paras Nath Singh versus State of Bihar and others, 2009 (6) Scale 157 have not permitted the State to recover a sum of Rs.1,01,529.50 being not excessive amount. Their Lordships have held as under: “6. Having considered the fact that the appellant was only a Class IV employee in the State of Bihar and almost an illiterate person and did not know the implications of giving such undertaking and in the absence of any fraud and misrepresentation attributed to the appellant and the amount being not so excessive, in particular Rs.1,01,529.50, out of which certain amount has already been recovered from the salary of the appellant by the State Authorities, we are of the view that a lenient view should be taken and the amount already paid by the State Authorities to the appellant shall not be recovered.” 8. In view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the action of the respondents to deduct a sum of Rs. 11,779/- from the retiral benefits of the petitioner is declared arbitrary. 9. The petitioner was required to be heard before the decision was taken to deduct a sum of Rs. 11,779/-. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. In normal circumstances, the Court would have reserved liberty to the respondents to pass appropriate order after hearing the petitioner, however, in the present case the ends of justice will be met if the matter is closed taking into consideration the superannuation of the petitioner coupled with the fact that the amount involved is meagre. Accordingly, the matter stands closed. In normal circumstances, the Court would have reserved liberty to the respondents to pass appropriate order after hearing the petitioner, however, in the present case the ends of justice will be met if the matter is closed taking into consideration the superannuation of the petitioner coupled with the fact that the amount involved is meagre. Accordingly, the matter stands closed. The respondents are directed to release the amount recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner with interest @ 9% per annum within a period of four weeks from today. No costs.