LPA No.187 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.187 of 2008 Date of decision: 02.02.2010 State of Haryana and others ............Appellants Versus Sh. Krishan Gopal ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. M. S. Sindhu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. ALOK SINGH, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 12.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge, thereby allowing the writ petition that petitioner/respondent would be entitled to pay scale of Rs.160-400 as was the scale mentioned in the order of appointment and in the subsequent order whereby his services were regularized. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that petitioner was appointed as Store Keeper in PWD, Public Health Department of Haryana State vide order dated 14.7.1970 LPA No.187 of 2008 -2- wherein it was mentioned that the pay scale would be of Rs.160-400 and appointment would be purely on temporary basis against one Khushi Ram, since retired. Thereafter, petitioner was regularized in the scale of Rs.160-400 vide order dated 21.5.1977. Realizing their mistake that the post on which petitioner was appointed carried a pay scale of Rs.110-225 and he was wrongly given the pay scale of Rs.160-400. Steps were taken to withdraw the pay scale of Rs.160-400 of the petitioner. 3. Learned Single Judge has observed that Khushi Ram was also drawing the pay scale of Rs.160-400, on whose retirement post falls vacant and petitioner was initially appointed on temporary basis and thereafter regularized on the pay scale of Rs.160-400. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that order of the learned Single Judge would create discrimination in the department as other employees are drawing pay scale of Rs.110-225 while writ petitioner is found entitled for pay scale of Rs.160-400. He further argued that mistake can be corrected at any time. Hence, department was within its jurisdiction to correct the pay scale of writ petitioner. 6. During the course of arguments, both the Counsel stated that writ petitioner stood superannuated and no longer in the service. That being so, we are of the view that arguments raised by learned Counsel for the appellant needs no LPA No.187 of 2008 -3- adjudication at this stage and we leave these questions open to be decided in appropriate case. Since writ petitioner has already been superannuated, hence, no recovery of the amount which was paid by the Government to the writ petitioner should be recovered. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 02.02.2010 JUDGE ashish