Letters Patent Appeal No.1214 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Letters Patent Appeal No.1214 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:-11.11.2009 Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala--Appellant Versus Sukhdev Chand and another ---Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. J.S.KHEHAR, J.(ORAL) The issue relates to recovery of excess, in terms of dues, given by the appellant to respondent No.1 during the course of his employment. While adjudicating on the claim of respondent No.1, learned Single Judge of this Court allowed Civil Writ Petition No.9228 of 2006 filed by respondent No.1 on 20.8.2009, and thereby set aside the action initiated by the appellant to recover the emoluments paid in excess to respondent No.1. Through the instant Letters Patent Appeal, appellant has impugned the order passed by this court on 20.8.2009. The solitary contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant during the course of hearing is based on an affidavit dated 7.7.2003, filed by respondent No.1, wherein he had given an undertaking that recovery due from him may be effected from his gratuity. He had also asserted in his affidavit that he would have no objection to such recovery. It is therefore, the vehement contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that, it was wholly unjustified for the learned Single Judge not to allow the appellant to make the recovery of excess payments made to Letters Patent Appeal No.1214 of 2009 (O&M) 2 respondent No.1. We have considered the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. We, however, find no merit therein. The affidavit submitted by respondent No.1 dated 7.7.2003 authorised the appellant to make any recovery from respondent No.1, which was permissible in law. In view of the conclusion arrived at by learned Single Judge (which was not subject matter of the challenge at the hands of the appellant) the instant recovery, which is being made from respondent No.1, is not permissible under the law, in view of the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court as also by a Full Bench of this Court. In view of the above, we find no merit in the contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, based on the affidavit of respondent No.1 dated 7.7.2003. No other submission was advanced at the hands of learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the above, the instant appeal being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. In view of the fact that the main appeal has been dismissed, it is not necessary for us to pass any formal order on the civil miscellaneous application filed on behalf of the appellant, for condonation of delay. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 11.11.2009 Judge AS