IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. No.9773-C of 2008 in Regular Second Appeal No.3265 of 2008 Date of Order: 20.10.2008 State of Haryana and others ...Appellants Versus Jeet Singh ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Addl. A.G.,Haryana for the appellants. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). C.M.No.9773-C of 2008 Though, there is a delay of 62 days in filing of the above appeal, counsel for the State of Haryana has addressed arguments on merits. R.S.A.No. 3265 of 2008 The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit praying for grant of a declaration that the show cause notice dated 29.03.2003 reducing his pay scale to Rs.5750/- with effect from 01.08.2004 be set aside being illegal and void and also praying for grant of a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from withdrawing the monetary benefits already received by the respondent. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent restricted his claim to a prayer that excess amount be not recovered. After considering the dispute in its entirety, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit by holding that as the respondent was promoted and had worked on the said post at the asking of the appellants, the salary received by him during this period could not be recovered. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Haryana and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. Regular Second Appeal No.3265 of 2008(O&M) -2- I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. It is not denied that the respondent was promoted by the appellants and worked as such on the promotional post and received salary. After discovery of an error, he was reverted to his substantive post. The appellants now seek to recover the salary paid. Both the trial Court as also the first appellate Court have returned findings of fact that the recovery cannot be effected as admittedly there was neither any misrepresentation nor any fraud on the part of the respondent and he had worked on the promotional post. Moreover, there is a delay of 62 days in filing the appeal. I find no reason whether in law or of fact to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. As no question of law muchless a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. October 20, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE