LPA No. 83 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.83 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 29 .3.2011 Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh ... Appellant Versus M.S.Gill and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia,Advocate for the appellant 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 12.1.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the payment of bonus made to the writ petitioner- respondents on the basis of un-revised pay scale could not be recovered back from them only on the ground that subsequently the pay scales were revised and they became dis-entitled to the payment of bonus having crossed the maximum ceiling of pay for earning bonus. 2. Briefly the facts are that the writ petitioner- respondents were paid bonus because they met the ceiling limit of Rs. 1600/- to Rs. 2500/- and none of them was drawing salary above Rs. 2500/- p.m. as on 31.3.1989. It is further clear that payment was made to them in the year 1989 in pursuance to letter dated 7.10.1989 (P.3). However, the same was sought to be recovered back from them on the ground that after revision of pay scales on 15.6.1990, which became effective from 1.1.1986, their ceiling limit of pay exceeded Rs. 2500/- p.m. and therefore no bonus was payable to them for the year 1988-89. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on para 10 of a Full Bench judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Budh Ram v. State of Haryana and others 2009(3) SCT 333 and held that since there was no mis-representation made by the writ petitioner- respondents it would be inequitable to effect any recovery from them particularly in view of the fact that when bonus was paid to them they were fully eligible as per letter dated 7.10.1989 (P.3). LPA No. 83 of 2011 2 3. We have heard Shri G.S.Sandhawalia, learned counsel for the appellant who has submitted that according to letter dated 7.10.1989 (P.3) bonus was paid for the year 1988-89 on adhoc basis on the fundamental presumption that the salary would not exceed the upper limit/ceiling as on 31.3.1989. The condition precedent for payment of bonus was ceiling on pay amounting to Rs. 1600/- to Rs. 2500/- per month. However, nothing could be pointed out from para 3 which may persuade us to reach to any conclusion contrary to the one reached by the learned Single Judge. We are unable to find any substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant because there is no condition imposed in the letter dated 7.10.1989(P.3) which may indicate that the employees were to refund if their pay exceeds Rs. 2500/-. This could have easily been done because pay commission recommendations were well in sight. The government, however, did not insert any such clause nor obtained any undertaking from employees. Therefore, the appeal does not merit admission and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (T.P.S. Mann) 29.3.2011 Judge Pkapoor