IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. Nos.666 & 667 of 2009 in/and L.P.A. No.210 of 2009 Date of decision: 30.3.2009 State of Punjab and others. -----Appellants Vs. Gurdev Singh Gill. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Manohar Lall, Add.A.G., Punjab for appellants. ----- ORDER: 1. Delay condoned. Heard on merits. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the State under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 16.7.2008, allowing the writ petition of the respondent in terms of earlier judgment dated 30.4.2008 in C.W.P. No.12630 of 2007 Sohan Lal & others v. State of Punjab and others. 3. The respondent-original petitioner challenged the order of recovery from pay on account of re-fixation after a period of about 14 years on the basis of audit report. The State contested this claim on the plea that earlier pay had been wrongly fixed. However, it was not LPA No.210 of 2009 the case of the State that the petitioner misrepresented or concealed facts. 4. Learned Single Judge held that in absence of any mis- representation or concealment by the employee, recovery could not be effected merely on the ground of wrong fixation of pay in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana 1994(5) SLR 753. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the State. 6. Learned counsel for the State submitted that earlier wrong fixation of pay was on account of pressure of the union on Head of the Department. He refers to para 10 of the written statement, which is to the following effect:- “10. That the contents of para No.10 are admitted in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble High Court all the petitioners were given full opportunity to defend their case including opportunity of personal hearing before passing order dated 9.3.2004. It is submitted that all the petitioners have got wrongly fixed their pay Rs.12750/- instead of Rs.12375/- by pressure of their union intentionally since the petitioners were aware of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in C.W.P. No.1141 of 1997 and Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.8814 of 1997 petitioners want to avail undue financial benefit by quoting references of such appeal. It is, therefore, requested that the present C.W.P. may kindly be dismissed in the interest of law to avoid such tendency in future and save the State from financial loss. Also petitioner of C.W.P. No.8591 of 2006 was given full opportunity to defend his case before passing 2 LPA No.210 of 2009 the order dated 5.9.2005 (Annexure R-8) and the letters i.e. show cause notice regarding the said recovery sent by the department to the petitioner are Annexure R-7, R-9 & R-10 and full opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case after hearing to the petitioner and after giving the full opportunity, order of recovery was passed by the department.” 7. It is not possible to hold that earlier wrong fixation of pay was vitiated by influence of the union. There is nothing to substantiate such a plea nor there is anything to show that the alleged influence continued for 14 years. 8. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE March 30, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ashwani JUDGE 3