IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1065 of 2010 Date of Decision : January 17, 2011 Jai Narain ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.K.S.Brar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 23.7.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that the benefit of military service towards the counting of pension and treating the same as qualified service, which have been paid to the petitioner could be recovered by the respondents. The basis of the rational adopted by the learned Single Judge is that the appellant knew very well that he was enjoying the army pension and that he was not entitled to the grant of two pension. The learned Single Judge after placing reliance on the third proposition laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Budh Ram and other v. State of LPA No. 1065 of 2010 -2- Haryana and others 2009(3) SCT 333, has observed that the judgment of Full Bench did not strictly apply to the facts of the present case. In other words, the benefit of proposition No.2 has not been extended to the appellant. 2. During the course of hearing, we asked Mr. R.K.S.Brar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana as to why the benefit of second proposition laid down in Budh Ram's case (Supra) could not be granted. Mr. Brar has fairly stated that the order dated 11.12.2000 has not been secured by the appellant by making any misrepresentation or playing any fraud and, therefore, the benefit of proposition No.2 laid down in Budh Ram's case (Supra) cannot be denied to him. 3. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23.7.2010 is, hereby, set aside. Consequently, the order dated 9.7.2009 (P-8) is upheld subject to the condition that no recovery be effected from the appellant. The appeal stands disposed of. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S.MANN ) January 17, 2011 JUDGE ajay-I