- (1.) LEARNED Standing Counsel, appearing for respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit to the amendment application. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 18th March, 2011, an order for recovery has been passed by the respondents for an amount, which was paid by the respondent No. 6 without there being any roll of the petitioner in that.
(2.) FROM the perusal of the impugned order, it is borne out that in the process of the excess payment, there was no misrepresentation or any fraud played by the petitioner. In view of that and in view of the settled law by Apex Court in the cases of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., : 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18; and State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. Mangalore University Non -Teaching Employees Association & Ors., : (2002) 3 SCC 302 as well as by this Court in the cases of Harish Chandra Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors,, (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1840; State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. State Public Services Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow & Anr., : (2004) 1 UPLBEC 127; Ram Briksha Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,, 2007 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C. 1544; and Special Appeal Defective No. 724 of 2008 - U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs. Prahlad Narain Jaswal & Anr., passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 02.12.2010, the order of recovery shall remain stayed until further orders of this Court.;