CWP No.12610 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12610 of 1990 DATE OF DECISION: March 18, 2010 SARVSHRI BHAGWAN SINGH & OTHERS ...PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. PRESENT: MR.VIPIN MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS. MR. GAGANDEEP SINGH WASU, DAG, HARYANA. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order (Annexure P-13) dated 7.9.1990, vide which the representation of the petitioners against the show cause notice was rejected. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioners were working as Forest Rangers and had been paid difference of minimum pay of the stipend by the Department. Subsequently, it transpired that difference of minimum pay of the stipend has wrongly been paid to the petitioners and hence notices were issued to them seeking to effect recovery alongwith 10% interest. This order was challenged by the petitioners in CWP No.1107 of 1990, in which this Court quashed the order Annexure P-9 with a direction to the respondents to issue a show cause notice after consideration of the matter and to decide the same by passing a speaking order. In pursuance to the order (Annexure P-10), a show cause notice (Annexure P-11) was issued to the petitioners to which they replied vide Annexure P-12. The reply of the petitioners was rejected by passing the order Annexure P-13 which reads as under:- CWP No.12610 of 1990 -2- “Subject: Payment of salary during training. On the subject cited above, appeal filed by Sarvshri Bhagwan Singh, Bharpur Singh Gulia, Ram Saroop and Satbir Singh, Forest Rangers, Bhiwani after consideration has been rejected. The employees may please be intimated the decision.” Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order (Annexure P-13) is absolutely non-speaking and is contrary to the orders Anenxure P-10, passed by this Court in CWP No.1107 of 1990, decided on 22.3.1990, and hence the same is liable to be quashed. On merits, counsel for the petitioner submits that even if certain amount was wrongly paid to the petitioners as difference of minimum pay of the stipend, the same cannot be recovered after such an inordinate delay. A perusal of the order (Annexure P-13) shows that the same is absolutely non-speaking. No reasons have been given while rejecting the representation filed by the petitioners. Apart from the above, no useful purpose would be served now at this stage, with regard to the recovery sought to be effected from the petitioners of the difference of minimum pay of the stipend, specially, when more than 20 years have elapsed since the passing of the order (Annexure P-9). In view of the above, the order (Annexure P-13) is quashed, the same being non-speaking. Directions are also issued to the respondents not to effect any recovery with regard to difference of minimum pay of the stipend from the petitioners in pursuance to the order (Annexure P-9). Writ petition is allowed. March 18, 2010 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) Gulati JUDGE