RSA No. 2549 of 2008 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
--
RSA No. 2549 of 2008(O&M)
Date of decision: 06.08.2008
Punjab State and Others .......Appellants
Versus
Veena Gupta .......Respondent
Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
Present: Mr. Anil Sharma, Sr, DAG, Punjab
for the appellants
-.-
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.
Plaintiff-Veena Gupta had filed a suit for declaration to the
effect that the order dated 03.10.2000 passed by the respondent State
whereby seniority of the plaintiff had been upset from serial No. 40 to 84-
A, order dated 22.07.1999 vide which the plaintiff had been deprived of
pay scale and order dated 09.08.2002 vide which, recovery of Rs.66,906/-
has been ordered while working as Junior Assistant, be declared as null and
void.
The suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed to the extent that
the order dated 03.10.2000 and 22.07.1999 were held to be legal and valid,
while the order dated 09.08.2002 effecting recovery, was declared as null
and void. As such,the present appellant-State was restrained from effecting
any recovery in regard to the disputed amount.
Being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated
10.10.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, the
RSA No. 2549 of 2008 (O&M) 2
defendants preferred an appeal before learned District Judge, which was
dismissed and the judgment and decree of the lower Court was affirmed.
In the present regular second appeal, no substantial question of
law has been raised. In fact, the only grievance that now persists, is with
respect to the recovery of amount Rs.66,906/- whereas the orders fixing the
seniority and grant of pay scale have been set aside by both the Courts
below. The present appeal is, therefore, misconceived. The respondent has
taken the financial benefits after performing her duties on the post of Junior
Assistant. There is no dispute that the financial benefits granted to the
plaintiff, for performing the duties, cannot be recovered. Judgments and
decrees passed by both the Court below do not suffer from any patent
illegality or infirmity, necessitating any interference by this Court.
The disputed amount is, in fact, the salary against the said
designation and against the work done by the respondent. There is no
misrepresentation on the part of the plaintiff/respondent. If there was any
mistake, that is on the part of the department, itself. The salary earned by
the plaintiff/respondent for the work done and responsibility performed by
her as Junior Assistant, cannot be recovered under any circumstances on
the ground that she allegedly held the said post for that particular period
due to error in seniority list.
Learned State counsel has placed reliance on judgment in a
case “Union of India and Others Vs. Sujatha Vadechalam (Smt.) and
Another, 2000(9) Supreme Court Cases 187, to contend that money can
be recovered in easy installments. However, it is not applicable to the facts
of the present case. In that case, transfer was accepted with certain terms
RSA No. 2549 of 2008 (O&M) 3
and conditions to the effect that in case of such transfer, she (respondent)
was to technically resign from the post of Accountant and accept the
reverted post of Clerk. After transfer to the post of Clerk in the office of
the Accountant General, Karataka at Bangalore, the pay of the respondent
was fixed at Rs.1260 per month, whereas it should have been fixed at
Rs.1090/-. Consequently, orders for refixation of pay and recovery of
excess amount were issued. While in the instant case, the
plaintiff/respondent was paid nothing more than what was her entitlement
for the post on which she had worked for that period. No other point has
been raised.
Dismissed in limine.
[NIRMALJIT KAUR]
JUDGE
August 06, 2008
mohan