IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 54 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.9.2009. Punjab & Sind Bank and another ......Appellants Vs. Jagjit Singh ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: None. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge modifying earlier order and directing that salary paid to the respondent for the period he had actually worked be not recovered though he was held not entitled to retiral benefits for the service for disputed period of two years rendered under interim order. 2. The respondent worked in the Army from 1953 to 1974 and after his discharge from Army, he was appointed in Punjab and Sind Bank as peon -cum-gunman. He was retired w.e.f. 31.3.1995 on the ground that he attained the age of 60 years on that date. The respondent challenged the order of his retirement on the ground that his date of birth being 2.7.1937, he could not be retired on 31.3.1995. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that his date of birth was recorded as 9.3.1935 in the army record and he joined army in the year 1953 declaring his age to be 18. He could not be allowed to give different date. LPA No. 90 of 2009 filed by the respondent LPA No. 54 of 2008 [2] has been dismissed by separate order passed today. 3. Review application was filed by the respondent stating that under the interim order dated 31.3.1995, the operation of impugned order of retirement had been stayed and the respondent continued to work up to 1997. 4. Learned Single Judge modified the order dismissing the writ petition with a direction that salary paid for the period he had actually worked be not recovered. However, he was not held entitled to be given any retiral benefit for the disputed period of two years. 5. Contention raised in this appeal is that order of stay granted by this Court was subject to the undertaking that the respondent would refund all the emoluments drawn by him after 31.3.1995, in case the writ petition was dismissed and once that undertaking was given, the respondent could not be allowed to retain the salary. The appellant has invoked the principle of restitution. 6. There is no doubt about the principle propounded in the appeal, in view of the express stipulation in the interim order. However, having regard to the fact that the respondent had actually worked, it will be too harsh to recover salary paid to him for the period he had actually worked. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) September 15, 2009 JUDGE raghav LPA No. 54 of 2008 [3] LPA No. 54 of 2008 [4] LPA No. 54 of 2008 [5]