FIAZ AHMAD ANJUM JANDRAN, J. Listed appeals entail identical question of law and facts, therefore, being decided through this single judgment.
2. Essential and relevant facts for adjudication of appeals are that initially appellant filed W.P. 2771/2014 for the release of service/retirement benefits while subsequently through W.P. 367/2016, prayed for a direction to the respondents to allow him to retain the car on depreciated price in terms of the Monetization Policy ('the policy') and also to release Rs.900,000/-, withheld against the retention of official vehicle. Both the qetitions were contested by the respondents and the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers vide separate judgments of even date i.e. 20.10.2020 dismissed the same, being assailed through instant appeals.
3. The learned Single Judge-in-Chambers while dismissing W.P. 367/2016 has held that "the monetization policy was not principally adopted by respondents/HIDP , therefore, the benefit of the same cannot be extended to the petitioner who has failed to make out a case of violation of rights or abuse of powers or arbitrary exercise of authority ." W.P. 2771/2014 was also dismissed by observing that "Petitioner is not entitled for retaining the official vehicle at depreciated cost in terms of policy as the same is not applicable to the employees of HIDP .
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. The petitioner stood retired from the service of respondents/HDIP on 09.05.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. The service benefits, claimed through the referred writ petitions have since been disbursed to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.09.2014 after withholding Rs.900,000/- out of leave encashment and Contributory Provident Fund-CPF . Said amount was withheld on account of official vehicle, being in possession of the appellant at the relevant time and the amount was directed to be released upon decision of W .P. 1929/2013.
6. Vide O.M. dated 11.02.2013, impleme ntation of the policy was mandatory for the Ministries/Divisions besides attached departments while it was made optional for the Semi-Autonomous/Autono mous Bodies, Corporations, etc. to decide for adoption of the policy or otherwise with the approval of the comp etent authority ,. Admittedly , the respondents/HDIP opted not to adopt the policy through the decision of its Board of Governors.
7. The ground of discrimination has also been refuted by the respondents/HDIP , therefore, appellant had no case to ask for implementation of the policy to his extent alone.
8. The question remains, withholding of Rs.900,000/- by the respondent/HDIP out of pensionary benefits for retaining Suzuki Cultus by the appellant. The amount withheld is part of pensionary benefits that includes Leave Encashment and Contributory Provident Fund-CPF which could not have been withheld and as an outstanding amount against the vehicle. It was for the reason that any portion of pensionary benefits cannot be withheld which amounts to penalize a retired employee without following the due course. The impugned action to this extent is therefore, uncalled for and appears to be an arbitrary exercise, particularly when the respondents have brought nothing on record to substantiate and justify the said action. Moreover , nothing has been placed on record as to under what provision/rule the amount had been withheld out of the pensionary benefits. The course adopted was not justified.
9. Having examined the case from every angle, the appellant has not been able to make out a case warranting interference in the impugned judgments which, in the backdrop of facts of instant case, are well-reasoned.
However , the impugned action to the extent of withholding of Rs.900,000/- out of pensionary benefits of the appellant is held to be without lawful justification.
10. If respondent/department has to recover any amount from appellant, no doubt, may recover but strictly in accordance with law and after initiation of process in which appellant is duly associated. Respondents have not put forward any material through which such recovery process is initiated except mere an oral assertion, that on account of rent of the vehicle said amount is withheld this assertion is not legally warranted.
11. The pensionary benefits of an employees which are receivable by him at the time of his retirement, having legitimate expectation to be received by him how could be withheld on the basis of an assertion alone.
12. In view of above both the appeals stand disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of Shahid Ali Khan qua the recovery after conducting regular inquiry , whereby the appellant has to be associated in the process, such inquiry should have been concluded within period of two months and if any amount becomes due against the appellant, the same may be deducted, where-after balance payment be released accordingly . However , appellant reserves his right to avail other appropriate remedies available to him under the law, if he felt aggrieved with the decision of respondents in any manner .