DEVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief(s):-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he retired as Pump Operator on 28/2/2017 from the office of respondent No.2. After undue delay, the retirement gratuity of petitioner was finally assessed on 2/5/2017 at Rs.4,10,435.00. However, instead of disbursement of retirement gratuity at the earliest, respondent No. 2, vide office order dtd. 27/6/2017 effected recovery of Rs.2,08,520.00 from the sanctioned amount of retirement gratuity. The recovery was effected on the pretext of payment of excess salary to the petitioner for the period 1/1/2013 to 28/2/2017.

(3.) Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid recovery on the ground that the order, Annexure A-3, was vague without specifying the reasons for recovery. Petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of being heard before effecting the recovery. Petitioner further denied having received excess salary.