N.L.VERDHAN Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for release of out standing amount of Rs.9,586.60 alongwith interest @ 18% pa. 2 The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was sent on deputation by respondent No.1 with respondent No.2 and posted as Tehsildar recovery with the respondent No.3 i.e. Kangra Central Co -operative Bank and joined there on 10 -11 -1987. He served this Bank upto October, 1999 before being repatriated to join as Tehsildar recovery in the parent department at Kullu. During the course of his deputation with the respondent No.3 he was unilaterally ordered to be repatriated by the respondent No.3 vide order dated 2.9.1989 (Annexure A -6) without any formal order form respondent No 1 i.e. Financial Commissioner (Revenue). Subsequently he has ordered to be relieved in absentia by respondent No.3 on 9.9.1989 without completing the necessary formalities of repatriation. During this period the applicant fell ill and was under medical treatment from 12.9.1989 to 18.10.1989 and was under treatment at Government Hospital Kullu. He was ordered to be posted as Tehsildar Una vide order dated 24.8.1989 and these orders were subsequently amended on 18.10 1989 as per order at Annexure A -22 by which he was posted as Tehsildar Recovery at Kullu. He joined as Tehsildar Recovery at Kullu on repatriation on 19.10 1989 following the above orders which were issued by the Revenue department.

(2.) The main dispute in this case relates to payment of dues on account of salary, arrears of salary, TA and TTA Bills and HRA etc, and other dues amounting to Rs.9,586,60 which were payable to him for the period he remained posted with respondent No.3 on deputation but was on leave on medical grounds during most part of this period. He had made several representations to respondent No.3 as also to respondent No.1 being the cadre controlling authority. Even after several representations made over the years the dues were not settled and ultimately applicant filed the present original application for settlement of his dues.

(3.) Reply was filed by respondent No.2 and 3. But no reply was filed on behalf of respondent No.1 despite time and opportunity. Respondent No 2 i.e. Registrar Co -operative Societies broadly mentioned in his reply that the dues are payable by respondent No.3 i.e. Kangra Central Co -operative Bank as the services of the applicant were placed at the disposal of respondent No.3 during this period and no such dues are payable by respondent No.2. In his reply respondent No.3 has mentioned that during the period of deputation dues were payable by the Bank only upto September 9, 1989, the date on which the applicant was relived in absentia. They have also mentioned that all due like TA etc. have been paid and as such no amount is payable to the applicant after 9.9.1989 on his re -patriation to his parent department.