Vikram S. Panwar vs State of H.P and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—This petition in my view is wholly misconceived.

The Petitioner who was working in the Public Works Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh admittedly retired on 31.3.2008. The Petitioner after retirement filed an Original Application before the erstwhile H.P State Administrative Tribunal on 25.4.2008. In this petition, it was alleged that the Executive Engineer, Shimla Division No.III had issued a letter dated 20.3.2008 to the Executive Engineer, B&R Division Arki to deduct an amount of Rs. 97,692/- from the retiral dues of the applicant in order to satisfy some audit objections. The Petitioner claimed that he had not personally received the letter but he had come to know about the same and had met the higher officials and prayed that this letter may not be given effect to but to no avail. The Petitioner claimed that no deduction could be ordered on the basis of the audit objection as the role of the audit is just advisory and it is for the Department to satisfy the audit objections. He had attached a copy of the letter, in question, with the Original Application as Annexure P/1 which means that he was aware about the letter. In the Original Application, he prayed for the grant of the following relief:

In view of the circumstances narrated above, it is respectfully prayed that the operation of letter No.SD-III-AB/PAC/2007-08/23515-20 dated 20.3.2008 Annexure P-1 addressed by Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 4 may kindly be stayed and the Respondents may kindly be restrained from deducting the amount of Rs. 97,692/-from the retirement dues of the applicant. These orders may kindly be passed in the interest of law and justice.

Since the Tribunal stands abolished vide notification issued by the Central Government, the case was transferred to this Court in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008 and the petition being CWP(T) No. 881 of 2008 was dismissed in default on 28.10.2009. The Petitioner instead of filing an application for recalling the order of the dismissal of default filed the present petition in which he claims that a new cause of action has arisen since the deduction has now actually been made.

Sh. S.K. Sood, earned Counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously argued that in the previous petition, he was only praying that the Respondents be restrained from making the deduction and now he has challenged the deduction itself and, therefore, it is a different cause of action.

I am not at all in agreement with the contention of Sh.Sood. The basic cause of dispute is the letter dated 20.3.2008. The entire dispute hinges around this letter. The validity of this letter had been challenged in the earlier petition also and once the petition was dismissed in default, no fresh petition would lie to challenge the very same letter. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed with liberty reserved to the Petitioner to apply for setting aside the order of dismissal of default in the earlier petition.

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.