Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, quashing recovery of the amount ranging from 15,000/- to 30,000/- approximately, from the four respondents who were posted as Sweepers in the office of the appellant. 2. In the year 2001, the respondents who were working as Sweepers were granted increment w.e.f. 1.1.1996. After about five years i.e. on 28.6.2006, without giving any hearing to the affected parties, it was declared that the increment was wrongly given on account of which the payments made were required to be recovered. On their filing writ petition in this Court, being C.W.P. No.5565 of 2007, order dated 19.4.2007 was passed, directing the appellant to take a decision on the legal notice served by the respondents. In pursuance thereof, order dated 28.11.2007, Annexure P - 2, was passed, stating that the increment was wrongly given, for which responsibility was of Harish Gupta, Office Superintendent and Balwinder Singh, Clerk and recovery was called for. Against the said order, the respondents filed writ petition, giving rise to the impugned order, inter - alia, stating that the recovery was effected without giving any opportunity of hearing to them. In absence of allegation of their having made misrepresentation in the matter of grant of increment, the recovery was not permissible. 3. The writ petition was contested on the plea that temporary service rendered by the respondents could not be taken into account for counting the service period which entitled them to increment. It was further pleaded that illegality came to the notice of the concerned authority at later point of time, for which action to retire Balwinder Singh, Clerk was taken. 4. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition after referring to judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana 1995(1) S.C.T. 668 : (1995) Supp. (1) SCC 18 and Full Bench judgment of this Court in Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 20090) SCT 333. Reference was also made to the concession of the counsel for the appellant that there was no misrepresentation or fraud played by the writ petitioners. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Though, there is no valid reason for delay in filing the appeal, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits. 7. Reference was also made to the concession of the counsel for the appellant that there was no misrepresentation or fraud played by the writ petitioners. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Though, there is no valid reason for delay in filing the appeal, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits. 7. It was conceded before the learned Single Judge that there was no misrepresentation by the respondents. Even according to the impugned order, Annexure P-2, the persons responsible for the alleged wrong grant of increment are Harish Gupta and Balwinder Singh. No action has been taken against Harish Gupta nor steps to effect recovery from Balwinder Singh have been taken. The argument that Balwinder Singh committed a fraud, cannot justify recovery from the respondents without hearing them. No interference is called for with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed.