Disposed

Sat Parkash Goel v. Hvpn Ltd. through Its MD Shakti Bhawan Pkl&Ors

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Jul 2009CWP/10473/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged recovery of withheld retirement benefits. High Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the employer to decide on a pending show cause notice after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.2 to consider and take a final decision on the show cause notice within three months after providing an opportunity of hearing.

Sat Parkash Goel Vs Hvpn Ltd… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.W.P. No. 10473 of 2009

¶3

DATE OF DECISION : 17.07.2009

¶4

Sat Parkash Goel

¶5

.... PETITIONER

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Haryana Viddyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others

¶8

..... RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

¶10

Present: Mr. J.K. Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )

¶13

The petitioner has retired from the services of the Haryana Viddyut Parsaran Nigam Limited as UDC on 30.11.1999. Before his retirement, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him with regard to embezzlement of certain amount. Due to the pendency of the said enquiry, an amount of Rs. 1,83,791/- was withheld from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. In the said departmental enquiry, the final report was submitted in the year 2002, but thereafter on the said report, no action was taken. The petitioner then filed CWP No. 20248 of 2008 in this Court for issuing direction to the respondents to release his retiral benefits, which were illegally withheld on the ground that in the said departmental enquiry, no final decision was taken. The said writ petition was disposed of on

¶14

CWP No. 10473 of 2009

¶15

-2-

¶16

1.12.2008 with a direction to the Managing Director/Chairman, the Haryana Viddyut Parsaran Nigam Limited to treat the writ petition as a representation and pass a speaking order within two months. In pursuance of the said direction, the claim made by the petitioner has been rejected by respondent No.1 vide order dated 16.4.2009, while observing that in the departmental enquiry, the charges against petitioner have been proved and the respondent Nigam was fully justified to withhold the aforesaid amount. It has been further ordered that recovery of Rs. 1,83,791/- be effected from the retiral benefits of the petitioner.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the since the aforesaid amount was already withheld from the retiral benefits of the petitioner, therefore, recovery of the same amount cannot be ordered to be effected from him. He has further pointed out that subsequently, on the basis of the enquiry report submitted in the year 2002, a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner to the effect as to why the amount of Rs. 1,83,791/be not recovered from his retiral benefits. It is the case of the petitioner that the said amount has already been withheld and in case in reply to the show cause notice, he is able to establish that the said amount is not to be recovered from him, he will be entitled for refund of the said amount. In these circumstances, the petitioner submits that he will file reply to the said show cause notice and the respondents be directed to take a final decision on the said show cause notice, after providing an opportunity of hearing to him.

¶18

CWP No. 10473 of 2009

¶19

-3-

¶20

In view of the above, without issuing notice of motion as it will un-necessary delay the matter, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit reply to the show cause notice within 15 days and respondent No.2 is further directed to consider and take a final decision on the said show cause notice within three months, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear that any observation made in the order dated 16.4.2009 (Annexure P-12) will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner.

¶21

July 17, 2009 ndj

¶22

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE

Sat Parkash Goel v. Hvpn Ltd. through Its MD Shakti Bhawan Pkl&Ors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sat Parkash Goel v. Hvpn Ltd. through Its MD Shakti Bhawan Pkl&Ors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dev Raj Vs Regional Pf. Commissioner & Ors.

Suhag Chand Vs Uhbvn

Sukhdev Singh and Ors. Vs Pepsu Road Transport Corp. and Ors.

S.S.Parmar & Ors. Vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam & Nar.

A.S. Chawla Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sham Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.