RSA No. 2549 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- RSA No. 2549 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 06.08.2008 Punjab State and Others .......Appellants Versus Veena Gupta .......Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present: Mr. Anil Sharma, Sr, DAG, Punjab for the appellants -.- NIRMALJIT KAUR , J. Plaintiff-Veena Gupta had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 03.10.2000 passed by the respondent State whereby seniority of the plaintiff had been upset from serial No. 40 to 84- A, order dated 22.07.1999 vide which the plaintiff had been deprived of pay scale and order dated 09.08.2002 vide which, recovery of Rs.66,906/- has been ordered while working as Junior Assistant, be declared as null and void. The suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed to the extent that the order dated 03.10.2000 and 22.07.1999 were held to be legal and valid, while the order dated 09.08.2002 effecting recovery, was declared as null and void. As such,the present appellant-State was restrained from effecting any recovery in regard to the disputed amount. Being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, the RSA No. 2549 of 2008 (O&M) 2 defendants preferred an appeal before learned District Judge, which was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the lower Court was affirmed. In the present regular second appeal, no substantial question of law has been raised. In fact, the only grievance that now persists, is with respect to the recovery of amount Rs.66,906/- whereas the orders fixing the seniority and grant of pay scale have been set aside by both the Courts below. The present appeal is, therefore, misconceived. The respondent has taken the financial benefits after performing her duties on the post of Junior Assistant. There is no dispute that the financial benefits granted to the plaintiff, for performing the duties, cannot be recovered. Judgments and decrees passed by both the Court below do not suffer from any patent illegality or infirmity, necessitating any interference by this Court. The disputed amount is, in fact, the salary against the said designation and against the work done by the respondent. There is no misrepresentation on the part of the plaintiff/respondent. If there was any mistake, that is on the part of the department, itself. The salary earned by the plaintiff/respondent for the work done and responsibility performed by her as Junior Assistant, cannot be recovered under any circumstances on the ground that she allegedly held the said post for that particular period due to error in seniority list. Learned State counsel has placed reliance on judgment in a case “Union of India and Others Vs. Sujatha Vadechalam (Smt.) and Another, 2000(9) Supreme Court Cases 187, to contend that money can be recovered in easy installments. However, it is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, transfer was accepted with certain terms RSA No. 2549 of 2008 (O&M) 3 and conditions to the effect that in case of such transfer, she (respondent) was to technically resign from the post of Accountant and accept the reverted post of Clerk. After transfer to the post of Clerk in the office of the Accountant General, Karataka at Bangalore, the pay of the respondent was fixed at Rs.1260 per month, whereas it should have been fixed at Rs.1090/-. Consequently, orders for refixation of pay and recovery of excess amount were issued. While in the instant case, the plaintiff/respondent was paid nothing more than what was her entitlement for the post on which she had worked for that period. No other point has been raised. Dismissed in limine. [NIRMALJIT KAUR] JUDGE August 06, 2008 mohan