RSA No. 1100 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.3201-C of 2009 and RSA No. 1100 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: November 27, 2009 State of Haryana and others ...... Appellants Versus Ishwar Singh (Retd.ASI) ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Vivek Lamba, AAG, Haryana for the appellants. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No.3201-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, delay of 41 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 1100 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent whereby a declaration has been granted to him that order dated 13.10.2006 for recovering some amount from his pension is illegal. The learned Lower Appellate Court found that the recovery RSA No. 1100 of 2009 (O&M) 2 could not be made from the pension relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Wing Commander R.R.Hingorani (Retd.), reported as AIR 1987 SC 808. The following question has been proposed:- “Whether the Appellant-State is justified in deducting the amount of penal rent from the pension of respondent-plaintiff especially keeping in view the fact that all the retiral benefits had either been sanctioned to him or have been paid to him and also keeping in view the fact that both the Lower Courts have categorically given a finding to the effect that charging of penal rent from the respondent-plaintiff was legal and justified?” Learned Assistant Advocate General is not in a position even to deny that no opportunity of hearing was ever awarded to the respondent before passing the alleged recovery order. In the circumstances both on the basis of the above mentioned judgment and the fact that no notice was served on the respondent the question proposed has to be answered against the appellants. Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 27 , 2009 sunita