WA 181/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. GOSWAMI The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 5.5.2011 passed by the learned Sing le Judge in WP(C) No.3141/2007. The case has a chequered history starting with the suspension of the respondent workman on 10.10.1983 and subsequent dismissal from service. It is not necessary for us to go into the history of the litigation for the purposes of disposal of this writ appeal. Suffice it to say that the matter has come up to this Court on two or three occa sions earlier. The allegation against the respondent workman is that he misappropriated an amou nt of ‘ 10,304.15. This led to his dismissal from service. An industrial dispute was raised and that was decided against the respondent workman. The respondent workman challenged the Award passed by the Labour Court and the l earned Single Judge by the order under appeal partially set aside the Award of t he Labour Court. The learned Single Judge upheld the dismissal of the respondent workman. The learned Single Judge however directed that the respondent workman would be entitled to subsistence allowance from 10.10.83 to 18.7.99 at the rate of 50% per month of his salary. Learned counsel for the appellant informs us that this amount is in the process of being paid and it may have already been paid. The appellant is aggrieved only by the direction of the learned Single Judge tha t the amount of ‘10,304.15 said to have been misappropriated by the respondent w orkman should not be recovered from him. It is submitted by learned counsel that this amount represents public money and it should be recovered from him. While this amount may represent public money, we are of the opinion that this am ount is not very considerable. The matter has been going on in several courts an d other forums from some time in 1983. The expenditure incurred by the appellant for recovering the amount from the respondent workman for the last almost 27 ye ars would be much more taking into consideration litigation expenses. Further, w e are of the opinion that the substantive amount has been (or is being paid) to the respondent workman towards subsistence allowance at the rate of 50% per mont h of his salary for the last 16 years. Therefore, in our opinion, a small amount of ‘10,000/- can be overlooked. Taking all these factors into consideration as well as the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge, we decline to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. In the circumstances, this writ appeal is dismissed.