K N MATHUR Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two Regular Second Appeals i.e. RSA No. 576 titled as Iqbal Singh versus General Manager and others and RSA No. 3015 of 2008 titled as K.N. Mathur versus General Manager and others.

(2.) In view of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellants it would be possible to dispose of these appeals through common order. The respective case pleaded by the appellants is that they were drawing Rs. 8,000/- per month as a basic pay and after circular issued on 11.11.1988 their salaries were reduced to Rs. 6100/- per month. This reduction of pay was on account of fact that Punjab State Electricity Board had regularized the work charge employees and issued revised scales of pay to different employees. The appellant accordingly filed this suit to impugn this reduction of Regular Second Appeal No. 3015 of 2008 2 his pay on the ground that the same was illegal, unconstitutional, null and void. The suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. The prayer of the appellants for restraining respondent from recovery of the excess payment was also declined on the ground that they did not file the suits within the period of limitation. The appeals filed by the appellants were also dismissed and accordingly they have filed the present Regular Second Appeals.

(3.) The common submission made by the counsel for the appellant is that as per the law laid down by this Court in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others 2009 (2) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 1617, the recoveries which are to be effected from the pay and allowance of a person on account of over payment cannot be effected in case the person had not made any misrepresentation to get excess payment. The counsel for the appellant accordingly pleads that atleast recovery of excess payment cannot be effected from the appellants in view of this legal position settled by Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Budh Ram's (supra). The counsel, accordingly, restricts his prayer in the present appeals to this limited extent that the judgments and decrees under appeal be modified to say that the recoveries of the excess payment be not effected from the appellant. The counsel appearing for the respondent could not seriously dispute this proposition as convassed by the counsel for the appellant.