Virendra Kumar Verma vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents.

This writ petition is appearing in the list, inasmuch as, the Petitioner has filed an application for fixing the date of hearing of the writ petition on urgency basis. While ascertaining the reason for urgency, we came to learn that after the Petitioner retired, it has been held out that due to some negligence on the part of the Petitioner, the State has suffered loss and such loss has been proposed to be recovered from the Provident Fund and Leave Encashment dues of the Petitioner. The learned Counsel for the State submitted that it has already filed its counter affidavit to the writ petition. We, accordingly, wanted to see how the State Government has dealt with the allegation made in the writ petition to the effect that fixation of the liability upon the Petitioner was done without notice to the Petitioner. We found that in the counter affidavit, the State has not dealt with the same.

Right to appropriate or adjust accrues in relation to liquidated demand in money. In order to convert a claim into a liquidated claim in money, one is required to take recourse to the procedure known in law. It may be by approaching appropriate adjudicating authority under disciplinary Rules or by taking recourse to any other statutory method. Until such time, a claim has been adjudicated upon, the claim remains a claim. Right to appropriate such a claim against an admitted amount due, is not legally sustainable. That being the situation and since it is also not being disputed that fixation of the liability was not done even with notice to the Petitioner, we allow the writ petition and set aside the order dated 04.12.2009 fixing liability on the Petitioner of the loss allegedly sustained by the State and the threat contained therein to appropriate such loss with the Provident Fund and Leave Encashment dues of the Petitioner and all subsequent orders passed to that effect. This order will not prevent the State Government to take such steps as it may deem fit for recovery of any loss from the Petitioner in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of.