IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.5526 of 2019 Decided on: 09.04.2025 Om Parkash ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. K.S. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harjeet Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Additional Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge Heard. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive relief: “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to releasing the leave salary, commutation and Death- cum-Retirement Gratuity to the applicant alongwith interest.” 3. The case of the petitioner is that he has retired w.e.f. 30.06.2011 from the Department of Police, Government of Himachal Pradesh. He was posted in Police Line, Kullu at the time of his retirement. The petitioner retired from the rank of Head Constable. 2 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that an FIR No.347/2011 dated 24.06.2011 under Sections 409 and 120-B of IPC was registered at Police Station, Kullu on 24.06.2011 i.e. about a week before the date of retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner was also arrayed as one of the accused in the said FIR, however, later after investigation nothing was found against the petitioner or for that matter any other accused and the investigating agency filed a cancellation report. It is also submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner, but he stood exonerated in the said proceedings. The petitioner has not been granted his retiral benefits on the premise of the registration of FIR No.347/2011. 5. The respondents, by way of their reply, have not denied the factual position. In para-6, it has been specifically admitted that in FIR No.347/2011, the untraced report had already been filed in the Court, however, the Court had not taken a final decision. The factum that the petitioner was exonerated of all charges in disciplinary proceedings has also not been denied. 6. In light of the admitted position, where the investigating agency has not found any prima facie case against the petitioner in FIR No.347/2011 and also there being no indictment of petitioner in disciplinary proceedings, it is difficult to 3 comprehend as to why the petitioner has been divested of his retiral benefits till date. Merely because the Court had not taken a final decision on the untraced report, the respondents do not get a jurisdiction to withhold the lawful dues of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release all the retiral benefits, otherwise permissible under rules, including the leave salary, commutation, Death-cum-Retirement etc. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondents within eight weeks from the production of copy of this order, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the entire amount payable to the petitioner. 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge April 09, 2025 (vt)