- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against a common order dated 20.8.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of three writ petitions bearing W.P.(S) No. 2504 of 2008, W.P.(S) No. 3506 of 2008 and W.P.(S) No. 3563 of 2008, by which all the writ petitions were allowed and the impugned order paused by the respondent - State of Jharkhand - the appellant herein, was quashed and set aside, by which the appellant -State of Jharkhand had ordered for recovery of the amount alleged to be the excess amount received by the petitioners -respondent herein by way of Reducible Pay Protection.
(2.) THE order for recovery was passed after more than 12 years of its receipt by the respondents -employees and that too without issuing any show cause notice to them or opportunity of hearing. This appeal itself has been filed after a delay of 131 days for which although an explanation has been offered. The same is one of the usual and hackneyed ones to the effect that the period of limitation expired since the file travelled from one department to the other before a decision could be taken to 10/5file /2014an Paappeal ge 84 against the impugned judgment and order and hence does not make out a case for condonation of delay. Inspite of this huge delay, we granted opportunity to the counsel representing the appellant -State to address us on the merit of the appeal in order to obviate miscarriage of justice on merit if there be any.
(3.) THIS is how we have heard the matter also on the merit but we have not been able to find out any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as the consistent view was taken by the learned Single State Of Jharkhand Through Director General Of Police Versus Thakur Ajit Kumar Judge, that the alleged excess amount could not be recovered after more than 12 years of the payment which the respondents had received by way of Reducible Pay Protection. Besides this, we have noticed that a large number of employees have retired in course of time and even the counsel for the appellant -State submitted that it would not be prudent to recover the amount from the retired employees, if at all it is fit to be recovered.;