Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 561 (HP)

Shakuntla Soni v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-09-04

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2020
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- "(i) That impugned office order/letter No.5361, dated 19.08.2015, issued by respondent No.3, Annexure A-4 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be restrained from effecting recovery of Rs.2,78,809/- pursuant to the Annexure A-4, dated 19.08.2015". 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:- The husband of the petitioner was serving as Social Education-cum-Block Planning Officer in the Office of Block Development Office, Kangra and he superannuated as such in the year 1999. He died on 25.10.2009. After his retirement and before his death, he had submitted certain bills for medical reimbursement, which were duly acknowledged and honoured by the Department concerned. In the year 2015, i.e. after almost six years as from the date of death of husband of the petitioner, the impugned Annexure (Annexure A-4) was issued by Block Development Officer, Development Block, Kangra, H.P, on 19.08.2015, vide which the petitioner was informed that a recovery of Rs.2,78,809/- stood reflected by the Audit Department from late husband of the petitioner pertaining to the period from December, 2007 to November, 2008, on account of his medial reimbursement bills. Vide this Communication, the petitioner was called upon to deposit the said amount. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the issuance of the impugned Annexure, vide which the petitioner has been called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.2,78,809/- is an arbitrary act on the part of the respondents because assuming there was any over payment of medial reimbursement bills to the husband of the petitioner or the husband of the petitioner stood reimbursed qua certain bills for which no reimbursement was to be made, then the Audit Department should have had raised objection immediately and not after six years as from the death of the husband of the petitioner. She has further argued that even otherwise, as would be evident from Annexure A-3, the objection so raised by the Audit Department, stood responded to by the Department concerned by mentioning therein that as the husband of the petitioner was dead, therefore, the purported recovery from the official being forfeited the objection be settled, yet nothing has been done. 4. She has further argued that even otherwise, as would be evident from Annexure A-3, the objection so raised by the Audit Department, stood responded to by the Department concerned by mentioning therein that as the husband of the petitioner was dead, therefore, the purported recovery from the official being forfeited the objection be settled, yet nothing has been done. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that though it is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner died in the year 2009 and the impugned Communication stood issued to the petitioner after six years as from the death of the husband of the petitioner, but because the Audit Department was insisting about recovery of the amount, therefore, the Department had no option but to issue impugned Communication. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents appended with the pleadings. 6. It is borne out from the record that deceased husband of the petitioner was diagnosed with Cancer after retirement. He underwent treatment at Apolo Cancer Institute, Rohini, Delhi and presented his medical bills for reimbursement to Block Development Officer, Kangra, amounting to Rs.2,51,881/-. This payment was made after the bills were passed by Treasury Officer, Kangra, on 23.08.2008 and 21.11.2008, as is evident from Annexure R-1 appended with the reply filed by respondent No.3. 7. It is further borne out from the reply of the respondent that thereafter, an objection was raised by the Office of Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh, during the Audit from December, 2007 to November, 2008 under para No.7 that an amount of Rs.2,78,809/- which was reimbursed to the husband of the petitioner, was not in accordance with law. It is to settle this para that the petitioner was called upon to deposit the amount in issue vide impugned Communication. 8. In my considered view, as the medical bills which were submitted by deceased husband of the petitioner were duly honoured by the Treasury Officer, Kangra and that too as far back as in the year 2008 itself, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the excess amount of medical reimbursement, if any, was paid to the husband of the petitioner on account of some connivance etc. on the part of the deceased employee. on the part of the deceased employee. Deceased husband of the petitioner bonafidely submitted his bills for medial reimbursement, which were so cleared by the Treasury Officer, Kangra. That being the peculiar factual matrix involved in this particular case, it would be extremely harsh in case impugned order vide which the petitioner has been called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.2,78,809/- is not quashed and set aside. More so as it is not the case of the respondents that the amount which was reimbursed to the husband of the petitioner was not actually incurred by him in the course of his treatment as it not in dispute that he was suffering from Cancer. 9. That being so, once the Treasury Officer approved the bills and no objection was raised immediately by the Audit Department within some reasonable period thereof, thereafter by the Audit Department, now the things are required to be put to a quites and the respondents cannot be permitted to recover the amount in terms of Annexure A-4, which undoubtedly would pinch the pocket of the petitioner who is the widow of deceased employee of the respondentDepartment and is now surviving on the family pension. 10. Besides this, in the year 2015 when impugned Communication was issued by the respondents-Department, the petitioner happened to be of 70 years old and today she is 75 years old. This is also a reason which is weighing with the Court for setting aside the impugned Communication as it will be extremely harsh to call upon a senior citizen to reimburse a hefty amount of Rs.2,78,709/-, which admittedly was released as medial reimbursement to her deceased husband by the concerned Treasury Officer, during his life time itself. 11. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed. Annexure A-4 is quashed and set aside. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.