PURAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant in this original application has claimed the relief that the Respondents may be directed to pay the DCRG and benefit of 16 years service to the applicant immediately with interest.

(2.) The case of the applicant in brief is that he retired from the post of Agriculture Extension Officer from Mandi on 30.11.1998 afternoon. He was charge sheeted and inquiry was instituted in which the charges against him were not proved, therefore, he was exonerated vide Annexure-P/1 dated 30.6.1998. However, some retiral benefits including DCRG and increment on completion of 16 years of service were not released to the applicant. In the month of March, 1997 Respondent No. 2 vide communication Annexure P-3 directed the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 40,849/- in the Government Treasury within 7 days. The applicant made the whole position clear about the alleged recovery. However, the dues of the applicant were not released. Instead Respondent No. 3 vide communication Annexure P-4 dated 18.11.1998 claimed that the aforesaid amount is recoverable from the applicant or he be directed to settle the matter at Kaza to which the applicant submitted his reply Annexure P-5 dated 10.12.1998. Since the dues of the applicant were still not paid he served notice Annexure P72 dated 5.4.1999 through his Counsel but of no avail. It is claimed that act of the Respondents in not releasing the DCRG and arrears of the applicant is highly illegal, arbitrary and amounts to victimisation resulting in unbearable financial loss and mental agony to the applicant, hence this original application.

(3.) The Respondents contested the claim of the applicant. It has been averred in the reply that the payment of DCRG of the applicant had been withheld because there is recovery against the applicant. In so far as the benefit of service after completion of 8 years is concerned the same had been given to the applicant, however, the benefit of 16 years service which accrued in favour of the applicant w.e.f. 22.2.1995 could be released on issue of certificate from DDO to the effect that there is no Vigilance/Departmental inquiry/proceedings/recovery/cases pending against the applicant. Since the recovery is pending against the applicant, therefore, such certificate could not be issued till the recovery of Rs. 40,848/- from him. It is further averred that the applicant was charge sheeted for misappropriation/embezzlement of sale proceeds of pesticides amounting to Rs. 1,34,748/-, however, the amount in question i.e. Rs. 40,848/- was not included in that charge sheet wherein the applicant was exonerated. The withheld amount is still recoverable from the applicant who was asked to reconcile the P.P. material but failed to do so. It is claimed that DCRG is payable to the applicant only after adjustment of the recoverable amount. Thus the claim in the original application has been denied.