Jaswant Singh Walia (Deceased) Through ... vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 621 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jaswant Singh Walia (Deceased) Through ... vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 11 January, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:003772




RSA-2991-2023 (O&M)              1              2024:PHHC:003772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                AT CHANDIGARH

                                         RSA-2991-2023 (O&M)
                                         Date of decision:11.01.2024
                                         Reserved on : 04.01.2024

Jaswant Singh Walia (deceased) through LRs
                                          ....Appellant

             Versus

State of Punjab and others
                                                ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:- Mr. F.S.Dhillon, Advocate for the appellant

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

1. The plaintiff through his LRs' challenges the

correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts

below, while dismissing his suit for grant of declaration to the effect

that recovery notices dated 23.12.2009 and 08.03.2010, regarding

the recovery of Rs.1,61,731/- alongwith interest are illegal, null and

void and the same have no effect on his pensionary rights.

2. It may be noted here that the appellant previously filed

civil suit no. 286 on 14.11.2009, with respect to the controversy

involved. The aforesaid suit was decreed on 01.03.2005, with the

following observations:-

"28. In the absence of any proof by the defendants on the file to show the amounts drawn by the plaintiff and the relevant record regarding these amounts, the defendants cannot be held entitled to recover these amounts, the defendants cannot be held entitled to recover these amounts/ from the plaintiff.

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:003772

RSA-2991-2023 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:003772

The impugned letter as such are illegal, null and void. However, I am of the consideration view that in case any amount is due from the plaintiff, the same should also not remain unpaid. Hence, the defendants are at liberty to issue a fresh notice to the plaintiff after fully explaining the accounts to the plaintiff and making it clear to the plaintiff after furnishing the copies of the GPF Account to the plaintiff from the very beginning and after affording the plaintiff an opportunity of being heard, the defendants shall be at liberty to pass a fresh reasoned order and in case any amount is found due from the plaintiff, the defendants shall well within their rights to recover the due amount from the appellant/plaintiff. Issued no.1 is accordingly decided."

3. At that time the plaintiff filed a suit challenging the

recovery notice with respect to Rs.36,253/-. It is evident that the

court permitted the defendants to issue fresh notice, after explaining

the accounts to the plaintiff.

4. Thereafter, the plaintiff was given notice and he

furnished details of the account for the alleged recovery notice. He

was also given personal hearing. Ultimately, the recovery notices

were issued, which were again challenged by filing a fresh suit. The

plaintiff claims that he has never taken an advance of Rs.1968/- and

he had taken a loan of Rs.1080/-, which was repaid in installments.

Both the courts, on appreciation of evidence, have come to a

conclusion that the defendants have proved that advance of

Rs.1968/- was sanctioned to the appellant on 07.10.1977, for

addition and alteration of the house which was drawn vide Treasury

Voucher no.85 of 10/1977. Ex.D13 further reflects that the

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:003772

RSA-2991-2023 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:003772

refundable advance of Rs.1080/- was sanctioned on 09.03.1978.

Thus, the courts have concluded that there is no substance in the

plaintiff's challenge.

5. Once again, learned counsel representing the appellant

has been heard at length. He has reiterated his submissions which

already have been examined by both the courts below. He submits

that the amount of Rs.1080/- was repaid in installments. However,

the plaintiff has failed to prove the same. After the previous round

of litigation, which resulted in judgment dated 01.03.2005, the

plaintiff has been provided with the sufficient details in the matter to

clarify the position with respect to recovery of Rs.1,61,731/-. He

has also been given an opportunity of hearing.

6. Learned counsel representing the appellant failed to

draw the attention of the court to any perversity or substantive error

in appreciation of evidence by the courts below.

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion,

finding no merit, the appeal is dismissed.

8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are

also disposed of.

11.01.2024                                   (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha                                              JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :      Yes/No
Whether reportable :             Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:003772

3 of 3