Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Sant Parkash Singh Gill on 13 November, 2014
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Deepak Sibal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 1812 of 2014 ( O&M )
DATE OF DECISION : 13.11.2014
State of Punjab and others
.... APPELLANTS
Versus
Sant Parkash Singh Gill
.... RESPONDENT
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
Present : Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab,
for the appellants.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) The State of Punjab and its officers have filed this intra court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 08.01.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 1533 of 2006) filed by Sant Parkash Singh Gill (respondent herein) has been partly allowed and the appellants have been restrained from effecting recovery of the excess amount paid to the respondent on account of wrong fixation of his pay. The learned Single Judge, while partly allowing the writ petition, relied upon the decision of this court in Sohan Lal and others vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 12630 of 2007 decided on 30.04.2008).
Though there is delay of 269 days in filing the instant appeal DASS NAROTAM 2014.11.18 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1812 of 2014 ( O&M ) -2- and the appellants have filed an application (CM No. 3860-LPA of 2014) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on merits.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Undisputedly, in the present case, the respondent had retired long back in the year 2005 and after his retirement, the alleged recovery was ordered to be effected from him on the ground that his pay scale was wrongly fixed in the higher pay scale, on account of which excess amount was paid to him. Recently, the Apex Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2012 (8) SCC 417, has made the following observations :-
"15. We are not convinced that this Court in various judgments referred to hereinbefore has laid down any proposition of law that only if the State or its officials establish that there was misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the recipients of the excess pay, then only the amount paid could be recovered. On the other hand, most of the cases referred to hereinbefore turned on the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases either because the recipients had retired or on the verge of retirement or were occupying lower posts in the administrative hierarchy."
In view of the above reproduced observations of the Apex Court and further, keeping in view the fact that the respondent has already retired long back,no recovery should be effected from him at this stage, and the learned Single DASS NAROTAM 2014.11.18 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1812 of 2014 ( O&M ) -3- Judge has rightly ordered so. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
No merit. Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
November 13, 2014 ( DEEPAK SIBAL )
ndj JUDGE
DASS NAROTAM
2014.11.18 12:55
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document