IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CM No. 7863-C of 2011 and RSA No. 2867 of 2011 Date of decision: 30.9.2011 Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam, Irrigation Works Pb., Chandigarh and others … Appellants. Versus Amrik Singh, Gateman … Respondent Present: Mr. S.K.Bhanot, Addl. AG Punjab, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: CM No. 7863-C of 2011: For the cause shown in the application, the delay of 80 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No. 2867 of 2011 The present appeal is directed against judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration has been decreed. The case of the plaintiff in the suit was that he was appointed on the post of Gateman in Ranjit Sagar Dam, Irrigation Works,Punjab, on 15.1.1986 after having served in the military from 11.2.1966 to 1.3.1981. Since he served during emergency, he was allowed five special increments which were subsequently withdrawn. He was granted one special increment in October, 1988 and two special increments in February, 1992. He retired on 28.2.2006. However, after his retirement, the defendants refixed his pay after withdrawing the special increments granted to him. Consequently, recovery is being effected from his retiral benefits/dues without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. The stand of the defendants was that although the increments were granted but the RSA No. 2867 of 2011 -2- same were withdrawn in compliance to the letter of the Punjab Government dated 24.3.2006. Their stand was that the plaintiff was given an opportunity of hearing by the Executive Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam, before the said action was taken. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, an appeal was filed by the defendants which was also dismissed by the first appellate Court. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. I have heard counsel for the appellant-defendants. The Courts below after having gone through the evidence of DW-1 Gurdial Singh examined by the defendants who could not prove service of the plaintiff for having been afforded personal hearing, have rightly opined that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the plaintiff before withdrawing the increments granted to him and subsequently effecting recovery from his retiral benefits. Further, there is no material document or evidence which may constitute the basis to conclude that there was fraud or misrepresentation made by the plaintiff for claiming such benefits. In this back-drop of the facts, the learned Courts below after following the ratio laid down in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) SCT 668(SC) have rightly observed that where benefit has been granted to the employees without misrepresentation or fraud, no recovery be made from such employees. In this context, the Courts below have also followed the judgment in Ajit Singh v. Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another, 2007(3) RSJ 83. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed. September 30, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE