Regular Second Appeal No.671 of 2008(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.2256-C of 2008 in Regular Second Appeal No.671 of 2008(O&M) Date of Order: 16.09.2008. State of Haryana and others ...Appellants Versus Rameshwar Dayal, ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana, for the appellants. Mr. Kuldeep Khandelwal, Advocate for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). C.M.No. 2256-C of 2008 Prayer in this application is to condone the delay of 213 days in filing of the appeal. Counsel for the appellants submits that on account of administrative exigencies, as enumerated in the application, the filing of the appeal was delayed. It is submitted that the delay is neither malafide nor grossly negligent and, therefore the delay of 213 be condoned. Counsel for the respondent does not oppose the prayer for condonation of delay. In view of the above reasons and the statement made by counsel for the respondent, the delay of 213 days in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No.671 of 2008 The plaintiff-respondent, was working as K.C.C. in Government Primary School, Sigra, Tehsil and District, Mahendergarh. He was to retire on 31.03.2002. The appellants allowed him to work beyond his date of Regular Second Appeal No.671 of 2008(O&M) -2- retirement but when they discovered their mistake he was immediately asked to retire on 20.11.2002, and was pressurised into depositing not only the salary received during this period but also the pensionary benefits. The respondent filed a suit praying that as he was not at fault in working beyond the period of retirement, the salary for the period he actually worked be refunded. Both the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court found as a matter of fact that the respondent was not at fault and was allowed to work for the period from 31.03.2002 to 20.11.2002 by the appellants. It was, therefore, held that the appellants had no right to direct the respondent to deposit the salary received for the said period and, therefore, the suit was decreed. Counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent was to retire on 31.03.2002, but continued to work and draw salary upto 20.11.2002. As he had no right to continue in service, beyond 31.03.2002, he has no right to receive salary for the period beyond the date of his retirement. The courts below ignored the inherent absence of a right, in the respondent, to continue in service and receive salary beyond 31.03.2002. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside, and the direction issued to the State of Haryana, to refund the salary etc. be set aside. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that for no fault on his part, the respondent was allowed to work upto 20.11.2002. The appellants, therefore, had no right to direct the respondent to deposit salary for the aforementioned period. It is submitted that the courts below have rightly directed the State of Haryana to refund the salary for the period for which the respondent actually worked. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and decrees and find no reason factual or legal to interfere with the concurrent findings, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of Regular Second Appeal No.671 of 2008(O&M) -3- the Code of Civil Procedure. Admittedly, the respondent was allowed, by the appellants, to work upto 20.11.2002. It is neither alleged nor established that the respondent mislead the department or fraudulently induced them into allowing him to work beyond the date of his retirement. The respondent, therefore, cannot be denied his salary for the period he actually worked. The error by the appellants in allowing the respondent to work beyond the period of retirement, cannot deprive him of his salary for the period he had actually worked. The courts below were, therefore, right in directing the State of Haryana to refund the salary for the period 31.03.2002 to 20.11.2002.As no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. September 16, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE