Regular Second Appeal No.4999 of 2010 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No.4999 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 20, 2010 Punjab National Bank ---Appellant versus Nafe Singh and another ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Arvind Rajotia, Advocate, for the appellant *** GURDEV SINGH, J. C.M.No. 14735-C of 2010 Heard. For the reasons disclosed in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the period for making up the deficiency in the Court fee is extended by a fortnight. Application is disposed of accordingly. C.M.No. 14737 C of 2010 Heard. Regular Second Appeal No.4999 of 2010 (O&M) -2- For the reasons disclosed in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of accordingly. C.M.No. 14736 C of 2010 Heard. Allowed subject to all just exceptions C.M.No. 14738 C of 2010 RSA No. 4999 of 2010 This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant-bank after decree was passed against it, in the suit filed by the respondents- plaintiffs, Nafe Singh and Jai Singh, for permanent injunction restraining it from effecting the recovery of excess payment made, under the garb of the orders dated 12.4.2004 and 15.4.2004 and the first appeal preferred by it and the cross objections preferred by the plaintiffs were dismissed by District Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment and decree dated 19.2.2009. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiffs filed suit for declaration to the effect that the orders dated 12.4.2004 and 15.4.2004 passed by the Regional Manager of the defendant-bank re-fixing their pay at ` 815/- and 920/-, respectively, with effect from the date of their joining and the order effecting recovery of the alleged excess payment with effect from 13.3.1992 onwards, are illegal, null and void, against the rules of natural justice, mala fide and as such not binding upon them and prayed for a consequential relief of injunction restraining the bank from recovering the alleged excess payment, under the garb of those orders. They pleaded in their suit that they are ex-servicemen and joined the bank in the year 1989. Their pay was protected in view of the circulars issued by Government of Regular Second Appeal No.4999 of 2010 (O&M) -3- India on 2.2.1980 and 25.8.1981. The bank re-fixed their pay in compliance to the letter dated 28.2.1993, whereby their basic pay was reduced. Before passing that order, no show cause notice was issued to them. They filed Civil Writ Petition before this Court and the order, vide which their pay was re-fixed, was set aside. The bank was allowed to proceed afresh in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 9.2.2004 was issued, to which they submitted their reply. However, without taking their reply into consideration, their pay was refixed with effect from the date of their joining and the recovery of alleged excess payments was also ordered. The suit was contested by the bank. In the written statement it has been admitted that the plaintiffs were re-employed as ex-servicemen and their pay was protected under the circulars, mentioned in the plaint and that their pay was re-fixed in accordance with the letters issued by the Government of India. They also admitted that the plaintiffs filed a writ petition before this Court, which was allowed and that thereafter, show cause notice was issued to them for re-fixing their pay. The other contentions made in the plaint were denied and it has been pleaded that it was only after considering the reply of the plaintiffs to the show cause notice that their emoluments were legally re-fixed. No cause of action has arisen to the plaintiffs to file the suit and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. The same is not maintainable and is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and they were called upon to produce their evidence in support of their respective cases. After taking into consideration the evidence, so produced by them Regular Second Appeal No.4999 of 2010 (O&M) -4- and hearing counsel on their behalf, the learned trial court recorded findings on the issues and partly decreed the suit for permanent injunction, as aforesaid. I have heard counsel for the defendant. It has been submitted by counsel for the defendant that the present case is squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2009(3) SCT 333( Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others). According to him, three distinct cases were enumerated in the said judgment and the case of the plaintiffs is covered by the cases mentioned in category-II. It was as a result of the bona fide mistake committed by the bank that the benefit of the protection of their pay was allowed and in view of the letter, subsequently issued by the Government of India, that benefit was withdrawn and as such, any amount paid to them, in excess, is liable to be recovered. It is not the case of the defendants, as pleaded in the written statement or projected in view of the evidence produced, that the excess payments were made to the plaintiffs under some bona file mistake. It was on account of the change in the policy, contained in different letters issued by the Government of India, from time to time, that the benefit given to the plaintiffs earlier was withdrawn. Their case is squarely covered by the judgments relied upon by the lower courts i.e. Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana 1995(1) Services Cases today 668 and Union of India v. M. Bhaskar and others 1996(4) Services Cases Today 56. In view of the above discussion, I conclude that no substantial Regular Second Appeal No.4999 of 2010 (O&M) -5- question of law arises in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE December 20, 2010 PARAMJIT