- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20.8.2008 passed by the learned Sihgle 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 passed 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. 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.
(2.) THIS appeal itself has been filed after a delay of 124 days for which an explanation has been offered, which is the usual and a hackneyed one stating that these files travelled from one department to the other, which does not make out a case for condonation of delay. Inspite of this huge delay, we permitted the Counsel for the appellants to address this Court on the merit of the matter, merely to avoid any injustice to the appellant -State that might result, in case it was dismissed merely on the ground of delay. 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 who has taken a just and reasonable view 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.
(3.) IF that is so, we fall to understand as to how the appellant -State can be allowed to recover the Said amount from the employees who are still in service, especially when there Is no apparent reason to recover the amount from them after 12 years of receipt of the amount.;