Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27879 (HP)

TANUJ VIR SINGH TOMAR v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/1534/2025 · 2025-03-07

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1534 of 2025 Decided on: 7th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tanuj Vir Singh Tomar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rohan Tomar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 3-State. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner’s case is that he was an employee of the respondent-H.P. State Co-operative Bank. He superannuated in the year 2018 in the capacity of Deputy General Manager. On 15.02.2018, a recovery notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent-Bank, whereby an amount of Rs.4,83,648/- was ordered to be recovered from him. This recovery notice was based upon an office 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 letter dated 12.12.2017. Pursuant to the recovery notice, the aforesaid amount was recovered from the retiral benefits due to the petitioner in May, 2018. 2. Learned counsel on both sides have jointly submitted that the office letter dated 12.12.2017, which was the basis for ordering recovery of an amount of Rs.4,83,648/- from the terminal benefits of the petitioner, has been quashed and set aside in Gopal Singh Kanwar & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others2. That being the admitted position, the observations and findings in Gopal Singh Kanwar and others2 will mutatis mutandis apply to the instant case as well. 3. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned recovery notice dated 15.02.2018 is set aside. Accordingly, respondent No.2-Bank is directed to refund the amount of Rs.4,86,798/- to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today. In case the aforesaid amount is not refunded within three weeks, the same shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date it was originally due to the petitioner till the date of actual payment. 2 CWP No.660 of 2018, decided alongwith connected matters on 28.03.2023 3 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 07, 2025 Judge Mukesh