The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that withholding ₹45,000 from the petitioner's retiral benefits was untenable. The Court ordered the amount to be refunded with interest at 12% per annum and awarded costs.
Refund of ₹45,000 with interest at 12% p.a. from retirement date and costs of ₹5,000.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[1]
CWP No.17641 of 2003(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.17641 of 2003(O&M) Date of Decision:27.02.2012
Rameshwar Lal S/o Shri kanshi Ram, Aged about 63 years, Resident of House No.1622, Sector 21, Panchkula (Haryana).
... Petitioner
Versus
The Panjab University, Sector 14, Chandigarh through its Registrar.
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Advocate and
None for the respondent.
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
45,000/- has been withheld from the retiral benefits on the ground that the said amount had been received as advance for conduct of examination along with another 1,00,000/-, which had been received but he did not duly account for 45,000/- before 31.03.1995. To notice issued by the University under Annexure P-9, the petitioner has given an explanation that out of 45,000/-, 25,000/- was uncashed cheque No.527365 and cash of 20,639.14 had been deposited with the University and duly receipted by receipt No.27883 dated 11.10.1994. In spite of the reply given, which is brought[2]
CWP No.17641 of 2003(O&M)
as Annexure P-10, the University had still not released the amount wrongly withheld by it. The same contention was raised in reply by the respondent-University that the petitioner has not duly accounted for the amount of advance received by him. Along with the replication, the petitioner has also filed the original receipt for 20.639.14. There is no specific denial of the fact that a cheque drawn for 25,000/- had not been encashed by the petitioner. In fact, the amount which was withheld to the tune of `45,000/- gets duly explained by the petitioner through his contentions brought through Annexure P-10 reply and the production of the original receipt.
45,000/- from the retiral benefits is wholly untenable and the same be refunded to the petitioner with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of his retirement till the date of payment with cost awarded as 5,000/-.27th February, 2012 Rajan
( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the refund of the amount wrongly withheld from his retiral benefits.
Whether the University's refusal to release the amount without considering the petitioner's explanation was justified.
Rameshwar Lal
The Panjab University
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court