Alam Datt vs State of H.P. and Others

Kuldip Singh, J.—The Petitioner has prayed mainly the following reliefs:

(a) Quash the impugned order A-1 issued arbitrarily, malafide and illegally by the Respondents;

(b) Direct the Respondents to release all the pensionary benefits of the applicant by working out the same @ Basic Pay of Rs. 10025/- being received by the applicant at the time of his retirement with arrears and interest thereon @ 18% pa from the date of amount falling due till the date of realization with all the consequential benefits.

On 2.11.2010, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed on record copy of Order, dated 5.11.2005, vide which the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner were closed after exonerating him. The learned Additional Advocate General has stated that all dues of the Petitioner have been paid and she has also placed on record Office Orders, dated 3.6.2006 and 29.3.2007 showing the release of various amounts to the Petitioner.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that no doubt, various amounts have been released and paid to the Petitioner, but since payments were released belatedly, therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to interest on belated payments.

The Respondents No. 1 and 2 in their reply have stated that Annexure A1, dated 21.5.2003 is not order, but letter for re-fixation of pay of the Petitioner as his pay was wrongly fixed earlier while the Petitioner was posted as Superintendent Grade-II by granting stepping up against Gian Chand Mahilla vide Officer Order, dated 17.11.1997 subject to verification by the audit and over payments if any pointed out by the audit will be recovered from the official concerned and as such, it was not admissible and objected by the Senior Deputy Accountant General (A&E), Shimla vide his letter dated 24.3.2003. Therefore, pay of the Petitioner was re-fixed at the initial stage i.e. post of Superintendent Grade-II. The preliminary inquiry was initiated against the Petitioner and he was charge-sheeted by the Commissioner(Revenue), Himachal Pradesh, Shimla for the period when he was working as Superintendent, Grade-II in Tehsil Office Kandaghat and, therefore, pensioner''s dues were not released due to pending departmental inquiry.

The petition was filed on 9.6.2003. The departmental inquiry has been closed against the Petitioner, which is clear from the order, dated 5.11.2005. The retiral benefits have also been released to the Petitioner as has been contended by the learned Addl. Advocate General. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to interest on belated payments. In the reply as well as Office Orders, dated 3.6.2006 and 29.3.2007, the Respondents have given reasons for belated payment. There was inquiry against the Petitioner. The Office Orders, dated 3.6.2006 and 29.3.2007 have not been assailed. There is nothing on record that payments released by department were accepted by Petitioner under protest and without prejudice to his rights to claim interest. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the Petitioner is not entitled to any interest, as claimed in the petition.

In view of above observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.