IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (113) CM-2298-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-922-2026 Date of Decision : April 06, 2026 Subhash Chand Saini .. Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Robin Dutta, Advocate, for the appellant.

Ms. Anu Pal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

CM-2298-LPA-2026 Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the appeal.

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 12 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

LPA-922-2026

1. In the present Letters Patent Appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.36990 of 2025 by which, the writ petition filed by the petitioner claiming the release of amount of Rs. 16 lacs which was paid to the labour from his own pocket and that too by taking loan, qua the execution of the work of construction of Water Harvesting Structure, Silt Detention Dam, in Block Shehzadpur has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argues that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the work at the dam was done but no payment was made to the labour employed which led to the making of the payment by the appellant from his own pocket and that too after taking loan from the friends.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once a payment has been made by the appellant to the labour employed in the project, he was entitled for the reimbursement, which aspect has been ignored by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition.

4. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

6. It may be noticed that the petitioner was an employee of the Department of Forest, Government of Haryana. The work, in respect of which, the claim is being raised, was executed by the Government of Haryana and not by the appellant in his personal capacity.

7. Further, nothing has come on record to show that any authority was given to the appellant to get the Government work executed at his own level from his own resources including financial resources.

8. On being asked as to how, a payment was made by the appellant from his own pocket by taking loan, when the said work was alleged to have been executed by the Government of Haryana, no answer has come forward.

9. Further, the finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge that no material has been placed on record as to how the said work was got executed and who executed the actual work and to whom the payment was made by the appellant. In the absence of any such record, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the present petition involves the disputed question of facts, is perfectly valid and legal.

10. Further, such execution is alleged to have been done by the appellant while in service. The appellant retired from service in the year 2017. The writ petition was filed in the year 2025. How can a person who has spent Rs.16 lacs from his own pocket immediately prior to the retirement will wait for a period of eight years to claim the said amount.

11. To counter this, learned counsel for the appellant contends that he had filed various representations raising the claim of the amount concerned. However, it may be noticed that a person who has spent Rs. 16 lacs from his own pocket and that too on behalf of the Government, will not wait for a period of eight years to approach the competent Court of law in case such representations were not bearing any fruit.

12. Further, a money claim is being raised by the appellant. On being asked to point out the names of the person to whom the money was paid, learned counsel for the a