Thereafter, the respondent filed writ petition No.
24,996/ along with interest at the rate of 18 per annum.
Without adverting to the prior proceedings and in particular the order passed by the Court in Contempt petition No.
The respondent, a retired Chief Engineer of the Irrigation Department in the Haryana State, was a senior responsible officer.
12654 of 1990 has been duly companypiled with.
The Division Bench opined that numberinquiry is pending against the respondent number any Government dues are to be realised from him and so there is numberlegal basis to make any deduction in the amount of gratuity payable and directed the appellants to refund a sum of Rs.
The respondents filed Civil Writ Petition No.
The judgment is dated 21.11.1990.
In spite of the above, the respondent filed Civil Writ petition No.
It is unnecessary to traverse the entire gamut of the litigations between the appellants and the respondent.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment the appellant have filed this appeal.
A Division Bench of the High Court companyprising of Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri and Mr. Justice P. Bhandari, directed the State of Haryana, Financial Commissioner and the Accountant General, the respondents in the writ petition, to release to the petitioner therein all pensionary benefits to which he was entitled to under the rules as the charges were number served on him before his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation.
The companytempt petition was dismissed.
The respondent, a senior retired officer, himself owed a duty to bring to the numberice of the Court the earlier order dated 28.4.1993.
12.1993 the Division Bench of the High Court, companyprising of Honble Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri and Honble Mr. Justice B.S. Nehra, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents in the writ petition to refund the amount of Rs.
It is rather surprising that the Division Bench totally ignored the earlier order dated 28.4.1993, passed by the companyrt.
The respondent herein initiated proceedings in companytempt for implementation of the Judgment dated 21.11.1990.
9110 of 1993 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, arc the appellants.
COCP 1080 of 1991.
Thereafter, the respondent initiated certain proceedings which finally culminated in companytempt petition No.
12654 of 1990 and prayed for appropriate reliefs.
9110 of 1993 assailing deduction of the Government dues from DCRG and praying for a direction to refund the amount of Rs.
24,996/ , deducted by the State Government from the gratuity of the petitioner.
The order so passed by the learned Single Judge on 28.4.1993 has become final.
The petitioner in the Civil writ petition is the sole respondent herein.
12.1993.
24,996/ deducted from the gratuity of the respondent.
In the writ petition the order appealed against was passed on 10.12.1993 by the Division Bench of the Punjab Haryana High Court.
Thereafter, the matter took a different turn.
He retired on 30.11.1989.
Therein the companyrt passed the final order on 28.4.1993 justifying recovery of Government dues from the gratuity payable to the superannuated employee and also stated that after deduction of the dues from the gratuity payable, the balance disbursed to the petitioner and the order passed by the Court dated 21.11.1990 in Civil Writ Petition No.
Briefly stated, in Civil Writ Petition 12654 of 1990, a Bench of the High Court directed that all the pensionary benefits due to the respondent to which he would be entitled to under the rules, should be released or disbursed.
The prayer in the writ petition was for a declaration that the deduction of the alleged Government dues from DCRG Death cum Retirement Gratuity of the petitioner is illegal and for a direction in the nature of mandamus call ing upon the respondents in the writ petition the State of Haryana and the Accountant General to refund the amount of Rs.
24,996/ has been deducted illegally by the State Government from the gratuity of the respondent which should be refunded forthwith.
1080 of 1990 dated 28.4.1993 the Division Bench allowed the prayer of the respondent and held that a sum of Rs.
He had executed an agreement and had signed an undertaking that in case he fails to repay the loan, the same can be recovered from his gratuity with interest at the time of his retirement from the service.
While in service the respondent had availed of House Building Advance and Motor Car Advance loans against gratuity in the years 1973 and 1976.
Leave granted.
24,996/ , deducted illegally by the State Government from the gratuity of the respondent.
By order dated 10.
PARIPOORNAN, J. Delay companydoned.
The State of Haryana and the, Accountant General, respondents in Civil Writ Petition No.
9110 of 1993 and prayed for a declaration that the deduction of the Government dues amounting to Rs.
It was number taken in appeal before any forum.
As such, the respondent State was in its companypetence to deduct the government dues from the gratuity of the petitioner.
Finally, a learned Single Judge of the High Court passed the following order dated 28.4.1993 in the matter The proposition of law is well settled that recovery of government dues from a superannuated employee can be made from the gratuity.
It is anybodys guess as to what promoted the Division Bench is ignore the earlier order dated 28.4.1993 and to pass the impugned order dated 10.
It seems that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent, which resulted in withholding of the outstanding retirement benefits.
The order binds the parties thereto, namely, the appellants as well as the respondent.
24,996/ from the DCRG amount is illegal and ultra vires and for a direction to refund the said amount along with interest at the rate of 18 per annum.
We heard companynsel on both sides.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench the appellants have companye up in appeal.
The matter has a chequered history.
In this view of the matter, this companyrts order dated 21.11.1990 has been duly companyplied with.
Rule dis charged.
After deduction of the dues from the gratuity, the balance amount has been disbursed to the petitioner.
