LPA No. 1167 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1167 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 15 . 7.2011 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And others . Appellants Versus . Jagir Singh and another .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr.DR Bansal , Advocate for the appellants 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 9.11.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that no recovery be effected from the writ petitioner- respondent and the impugned order dated 14.2.2003 (P.5) was quashed. The learned Single Judge also directed that the amount withheld or recovered amount be refunded to the writ petitioner- respondent. 2. Mr. D.R.Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant has raised a new issue before us. According to him the writ petitioner- respondent has earlier filed CWP No. 8893 of 1993 alongwith two other employees challenging the reduction in his pay after rectification/ refixation. He has also prayed for quashing recovery from his pay. On 27.7.1993 the writ petition came up for motion hearing when the stay was granted. As a consequence, the writ petitioner- respondents continued getting earlier pay without deduction as a result of rectification/ refixation. Accordingly the LPA No. 1167 of 2011 2 recovery order could not be enforced. On 18.9.2001, the petitioner requested for dismissal of the writ petition and this Court in view of the judgement rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Udayasankaran and others v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 1901. He has submitted that the order (P.5) which was impugned before this Court has been quashed by the learned Single Judge including the huge amount of recovery which was paid on account of the interim directions issued by this Court. According to the learned counsel it would not be covered by the Full Bench judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others 2009(3) PLR 511. 3. Having heard the learned counsel we are of the considered view that no such issue has been raised before the learned Single Judge and if the appellant wishes to raise any such additional issue, he has to move appropriate application before the learned Single Judge. 4. As a sequel to the above discussion, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. However, the appellant may avail any other remedy in accordance with law. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Gurdev Singh) 15.7.2011 Judge okg