Manohar Lal Kashmiri vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3026 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 2544/2019 Decided on: 27.03.2023

.

    Manohar Lal Kashmiri                         ....Petitioner.





                                            Versus





    State of H.P. & Ors.                                             ......Respondents

............................................................................................. Coram The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner r : Mr. Dheeraj K. Verma, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents

No.1 to 4.

Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.5.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Petitioner was serving as Headmaster with the

respondents/State. While in service, he claimed Leave Travel

Concession (LTC) for undertaking journey w.e.f. 30.06.1995 to

19.07.1995 from Chamba to Trivendrum and back. An amount of

Rs.16,000/- towards LTC was paid by the respondents/State to the

petitioner on 26.06.1995 and Rs.4900/- was paid to him on 13.09.1995.

Thus, in all Rs.20,900/- was paid to the petitioner towards his LTC claim

for having undertaken aforesaid journey, during the period in question.

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. The petitioner retired on 31.01.2001, on attaining the age

of superannuation. On the basis of audit objection pointed out by

.

respondent No.5 during the year 2006, the respondents-State on

12.02.2007, ordered for effecting the recovery from the petitioner

amounting to Rs.20,900/- that was paid to him on account of his LTC

claim. Recovery was ordered to be effected from the petitioner on the

ground that as per audit objection, the petitioner was required to submit

a certificate of having performed the journey by buses owned and

operated by Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. but the petitioner had

failed to furnish such certificate.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the

petitioner had actually performed the journey in the buses owned and

operated by Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Attention in this regard

was invited to cash receipt-cum-ticket dated 30.06.1995 (Annexure P-5)

issued to the petitioner by the Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. It was

also submitted that to the same effect the certificate dated 25.07.1995

was also issued to the petitioner by Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd.

for having undertaken the journey in its buses from 30.06.1995 to

19.07.1995 from Chamba to Trivendrum and back. Respondent No.1

has not disputed the above two documents in its reply.

Learned Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No.5 submitted

that it was for the respondents/State to settle the audit objection. The

State has not responded back to the audit objection and straightway

ordered for effecting recovery from the petitioner.

.

4. The record shows that the petitioner had undertaken the

journey in question in the buses owned and operated by Garhwal

Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. The cash receipt-cum-ticket as well as

journey certificate, enclosed by the petitioner at Annexure P-5 &

Annexure P-6, respectively, issued by Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam

Ltd. to him, support the contentions of the petitioner. Even otherwise,

the petitioner stood retired from the service on attaining the age of

superannuation on 31.01.2001. Petitioner's LTC claim in question was

settled by the respondents/State in the year 1995. Total amount of

Rs.20,900/- was paid to the petitioner towards LTC for his having

undertaken journey from Chamba to Trivendrum and back. The

petitioner was a Class-II employee. In view of the well settled legal

position pertaining to ordering recovery from retired Class-II employee,

in the instant case the recovery even otherwise could not have been

ordered to be effected from the petitioner 6 years after his retirement,

for the LTC amount that was paid to him 6 years prior to his retirement

and that too without any misrepresentation on his part.

Considering all these aspects, the writ petition is allowed.

Accordingly, orders passed by the respondents/State directing recovery

of Rs.20,900/- alongwith interest from the petitioner are quashed and

set aside. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

.

                                             (Jyotsna Rewal Dua)





                                                   Judge
      27th March, 2023 (Rohit)





                       r           to