- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants.
(2.) THERE is delay of 139 days in filing the appeal, therefore, the appellants have filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appellants have tried to explain the delay in Para Nos. 1 to 6, which are reproduced as under: "1. That the appellants are aggrieved against the order dated 6.5.08 passed by ld. Single Judge. The certified copy of this order was received by the appellants on 20.5.08. 2. That thereafter the matter was sent to sought the legal opinion and for sanction for filing the appeal. 3.That after receiving the sanction for filing the appeal, the appeal has been filed immediately without any further delay. 4. That the delay in filing the appeal is unintentional and due to procedural lapses. 5. that in the interest of justice and to save the lapse on the part of the appellants, the appellant is filing the application for condonation of delay. 6. That the delay in filing the appeal is due to the official and administrative procedure and is therefore bonafide and unintentional." From the above averments of the application, it is revealed that certified copy of the order was received by the appellants on 20.05.2008, whereas certified copy appended with the appeal clearly shows that certified copy was ready on 08.08.2011 and it was delivered to the appellants on 09.08.2011. This fact has been supported by affidavit also, which prima facie appears to be false. From other averments of the application, it is clear that the application has been drafted in a very cursory manner and delay has not been explained by the appellants satisfactorily. In these circumstances, we find that no sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be dismissed and the same is, hereby, dismissed. That apart, we have also examined the matter on merits and we find that the matter relates to re-fixation of revised pay scale. The respondents/appellants issued an order to writ-petitioner/respondent for recovery of amount of Rs. 32,413/-. The same was challenged by way of writ petition before Single Bench. It was contended by writ-petitioner that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on his part, therefore, in view of number of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the amount already paid should not be recovered and in case it has been recovered, then the same be repaid to petitioner. Single Bench allowed the writ petition and directed to re-pay the amount so recovered. Learned Single Judge has referred judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 18 and judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Pushplata Thada Vs. State & Ors., RLW 2001(3) Raj. 1555. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants did not dispute that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the writ petitioner to get his scale revised. He also does not dispute principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Division Bench of this Court in above referred judgments.
(3.) IN these circumstances, we find that order passed by the Single Bench appears to be legal and justified and no interference in the same is called for. There is no merit in this appeal. In view of above discussions, the intra Court appeal is dismissed being barred by limitation as well as on merits also. Stay application is also dismissed.;