Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1678 (PNJ)

Chhaju Ram, Retired Junior Engineer v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam

2012-12-01

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2012
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral);— The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 10.8.2010 passed by respondent No.3 for recovery of an amount of Rs.23,950/- (Annexure P-2) and order dated 2.8.2004 passed by respondent No.4 for recovery of Rs.8,094/-(Annexure P-3) from his retiral benefits and other dues, with a further prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount recovered, as stated above, along with interest. At the outset, it may be relevant to mention that the petitioner had also filed CWP No.16167 of 2009 before this Court seeking the following relief: “issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the charge sheets Annexure A-1 to A-4 and further issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release balance 25% pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioners along with interests @ 24% p.a.” A further perusal of the averments made in the aforesaid writ petition would show that the petitioner has raised grievance that after his retirement only provisional pension equal to 75% of the pension due and all other retiral benefits have been withheld without assigning any reason. Upon notice, reply was filed in the aforesaid writ petition on behalf of the respondents. The specific averments were made regarding the petitioner to the following effect in the additional affidavit dated 16.2.2012 of Sh. J.S. Nara, Executive Engineer, Sub Urban Division No.2, UHBVN, Rohtak: “That thereafter the complete case of the petitioner was sent to the office of Chief Accounts Officer/Pension at Panchkula for issuance of necessary sanction orders in favour of the petitioner No.1. The Chief Accounts Officer vide its office memo dated 13.2.2012 issued the necessary PPO in favour of Chhaju Ram and similarly also issued necessary sanction for release of gratuity in favour of petitioner vide its office memo dated 10.2.2012 and also issued revised commutation of 40% pension in respect of petitioner vide office order dated 10.2.2012. The true photocopies of the PPO dated 13.2.2012, GPO dated 10.2.2012 and revised CPO dated 10.2.2012 is attached herewith as Annexures R-4/11, R-4/12 and R-4/13 respectively. The true photocopies of the PPO dated 13.2.2012, GPO dated 10.2.2012 and revised CPO dated 10.2.2012 is attached herewith as Annexures R-4/11, R-4/12 and R-4/13 respectively. After receiving the necessary sanction orders from the office of Chief Accounts Officer, Panchkula, the cheque bearing No.838717, dated 14.2.2012 for an amount of Rs.9,95,291/- was issued in favour of petitioner No.1 by the deponent. The true photocopy of the cheque dated 14.2.2012 is attached herewith as Annexure R-4/14. The detail of this amount of Rs.9,95,291/- is as under:- Arrear of Pension Rs.5,50,757/- Gratuity Rs.2,05,709/- Commutation Rs.2,38,825/- _____ Total Rs.9,95,291/- _____ 3. That the arrear of 2nd ACP to the petitioner which is calculated as Rs.32,041/-, the difference of leaveencashment for an amount of Rs.6,433/- was also found to be payable to the petitioner No.1. However, there was a recovery of Rs.8,094/- on account of office memo from the office of Executive Engineer, City Division, Karnal and an amount of Rs.25,776/- was also recovered on account of punishment imposed upon the petitioner vide office order dated 11.5.2010. Thus, it is found that after making the necessary recoveries another amount of Rs.4,613.19 is payable to the petitioner No.1 and the same is in the process of releasing to the petitioner No.1. The detail of the arrear of 2nd ACP, recoveries and for payment of Rs.4,613.19 is attached herewith as Annexure R-4/15. The true photocopy of the arrear of pension payable to the petitioner No.1 of an amount of Rs.5,50,757/- and total payment of Rs.9,95,291/- duly passed by the office of deponent is also attached herewith as Annexure R-4/16. Thus, the retiral benefits due to the petitioner No.1 were already released by the office of deponent and therefore this Hon'ble Court may dismiss the above mentioned writ petition being infructuous.” Thus, from the perusal of the pleadings of the petitioner as well as the respondents made in CWP No.16167 of 2009, it is clearly made out that the petitioner had sought a direction to the respondents to release his full amount of pension and other retiral benefits and the respondents in their written statement have taken a defence that the retiral benefits of the petitioner were duly calculated and were released after making some recoveries pending against him. Even the documents showing details of payment and recoveries made from the petitioner were placed on record. Even the documents showing details of payment and recoveries made from the petitioner were placed on record. The petitioner did not dispute the aforesaid defence taken by the respondents to justify the recoveries made against him and in his wisdom choose to confine relief in the said writ petition only to the extent of quashing of charge-sheets only, waiving his right to challenge the said recoveries. In this view of the matter, the second instant writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned recoveries vide Annexures P-2 and P-3, which could be claimed in the aforesaid earlier petition, is not maintainable. Dismissed