2026:HHC:26569 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1567 of 2020 Decided on : 02 nd July, 2026 ____________________________________________________________________ Shiv Dev Rana ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vishav Deep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i). That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the amount of Rs.60,000/- to the petitioner alongwith upto date interest which has wrongly been recovered from the petitioner, within time bound period. (ii). That in the alternative the respondents may kindly be directed to constitute the review committee as recommended by the interim committee in its report dated 10.7.2018 contained in Annexure P-3 within time bound manner.” 2. The facts which emerge from the pleadings are 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 that the petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant in the year 1987 with the respondent-Department and retired from service on 30.04.2017. During the Audit for the years 2008 and 2009, the Local Audit Department, Shimla, had made an audit objection pertaining to non-adjustment of the temporary advance issued in favour of the petitioner amounting to Rs.80,000/- i.e. Rs.76,000/- at Sr. No.1 and Rs.4000/- at Sr. No.8 of the para of the Audit report. However, out of Rs.76,000/- advance given to the petitioner, he had submitted original bills/vouchers of Rs.20,000/- and remaining amount of Rs.56,000/- + Rs.4000/- i.e. Rs.60,000/- was lying with him unspent and accordingly he was directed to deposit the same, vide letter dated 12.04.2017. 3. Vide office order dated 11.05.2017, a Committee was constituted with regard to Audit Recovery on account of advance taken from the State Council for Vocational Training (for short “SCVT”) by the petitioner. The Committee had called the petitioner as well as Cashier and other dealing hands for the purpose of adjusting the amount. The Committee had 3 submitted the report, wherein some discrepancy with regard to wrong adjustment of bills/vouchers was found and it was concluded that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was wrongly adjusted against the advance of Rs.50,000/- taken by one Sh. Lal Singh Thakur. Further, an amount to the tune of Rs.26,000/- and Rs.14,000/- was found to be recovered from the petitioner and one Sh. Suneel Sharma, respectively, as no adjustment vouchers amounting to Rs.20,000/- in respect of Sh. S.K. Lakhanpal (Principal, Government ITI Shahpur) and Shri Shivender Deogar (Principal Government ITI Solan) @Rs.10,000/- each was found unadjusted and it was found that the same are to be adjusted against the advance of Rs.76,000/-. 4. The petitioner has also averred that the respondents had deducted/recovered an amount of Rs.64,154/- from his pension dues illegally without taking into consideration the position explained by him. The petitioner had made a representation and the same was considered and it was informed that the case of the petitioner 4 has already been considered and he has been informed vide letter dated 06.02.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 25.08.2019 and the respondents had replied to the same on 10.02.2020 (Annexure P-8), stating that the Audit Party of the Local Audit Department has conducted the audit of SCVT fund of the Directorate for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2012 and shown advance to the tune of Rs.80,000/- standing against the petitioner. Out of the total advance of Rs.80,000/-, Rs.20,000/- was adjusted and balance amount of Rs.60,000/- was still to be adjusted. 5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the recovery of Rs.60,000/- made from his retiral benefits, approached this Court by way of the present petition, stating that the action on the part of the respondents is totally wrong, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory as well as against the law. It has also been averred that the respondents have failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner had never raised any demand of Rs.80,000/- as alleged and the explanation furnished by him has not been taken into consideration. He was also not 5 supplied with the final report. Further, the respondents have failed to constitute a Committee as per the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee. Further the recovery was made from the petitioner after his retirement in the month of July 2017, whereas the petitioner stood retired on 30.04.2017. 6. The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that the petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the Court. It has also been averred that during Audit of SCVT Fund for the years 2008 and 2009, the local Audit Department had made audit objection pertaining to non-adjustment of the temporary advance issued in favour of the petitioner. It has been admitted that an amount of Rs.60,000/- has been deducted from the emoluments to be released to the petitioner. It has further been averred that a Committee was constituted at the Department level to examine the whole matter regarding Audit Recovery on account of advance taken from SCVT Fund and the Committee, so constituted, submitted its report. After 6 that, notices were issued to all the respective incumbents with respect to whom the observations were made by the Committee vide letter dated 23.06.2017. After considering the matter in detail, the respondents-State came to the conclusion that advance to the tune of Rs.60,000/- is due against the petitioner as per records maintained in the office and accordingly he was liable for its adjustment. 7. It has further been averred that the advance was awaiting its adjustment/settlement for a long time and had caused loss of interest to the SCVT Fund. Accordingly, the respondents-State vide letter dated 21.05.2018 afforded a final opportunity to produce the bills/vouchers and settle the advance within a week’s time positively and the petitioner was informed regarding the final opportunity to adjust the amount. The petitioner vide letter dated 28.05.2018 submitted his reply. The respondents-State constituted an Internal Committee to examine the matter. 8. As per the interim report, the Committee recommended that the earlier Committee may be asked to 7 review the report and submit its comment with documentary proof with regard to its findings, so that, the present Committee may give its final report. However, respondent No.2 examined the interim report of the Committee and was of the opinion that no findings have been recorded by the Committee that was specifically constituted to determine the pending financial liabilities of the petitioner on the basis of record pertaining to the matter and, therefore, recommendation of the Committee to direct another Committee constituted earlier is not legally tenable. Hence, the Committee was again directed to submit its findings on the basis of record. The Joint Director-cum-Chairman of the Committee had sought certain documents from the petitioner vide letter dated 29.08.2018 and the petitioner vide his representation dated 01.09.2018 submitted the reply. The Committee taking into account the representation dated 01.09.2018, made by the petitioner, submitted its final report and recommended that since the petitioner had received the amount, he is liable for its adjustment/recovery. 8 9. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the facts. The petitioner did not dispute receipt of amount as reflected in Annexure R-6. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 11. It is now not in dispute that the petitioner had taken the temporary advance as evident from a perusal of Annexure R-6. Had it been a case where some amount been given to the petitioner without his asking, the said amount could not have been recovered after his retirement. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that once the petitioner had retired, the said amount cannot be recovered from him, especially when the advance was made to him in the year 2008. The said plea cannot be accepted for the reason that once the petitioner had taken the amount as advance, he was under duty and obligation to refund the balance amount after utilizing a part of it. However, he did not refund the amount and the respondents after his retirement had recovered the said amount, which is 9 permissible in law. Furthermore, a proper procedure has been followed to held that the petitioner had neither refunded the amount taken as advance nor furnished the bills of the amount illegally retained by him. The reply furnished by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and his representation was rightly rejected. 13. Once, the petitioner had received the amount, no illegality can be found with the action on the part of the respondents, whereby they have adjusted the amount of Rs.60,000/- from his retiral benefits. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that since he is retired Class-III employee, no recovery could have been effected from him, since the amount was received by him in the year 2008. However, the said plea cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the petitioner had taken the advance and he was not given the benefit, without his asking. Had the respondents wrongly released the benefits to him and there was no misrepresentation on his part, the amount could not have 10 been recovered from him. 15. In the present case, even as per the petitioner, he had taken the advance and when no explanation was furnished by him to show that he had utilized the remaining amount of Rs.60,000/-, which was lying with him, the respondents-State rightly rejected his request to refund him the said amount. 16. The respondents have not committed any illegality while deducting a sum of Rs.60,000/-, which was due and payable by the petitioner to the respondents, from his retiral benefits and there is no perversity in the said action on the part of the respondents-State. 17. Resultantly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 02 nd July, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge