COCP No.1920 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1920 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 20.11.2009 Smt. Meena Kumari ......Petitioner(s) Versus Sh. Raj Kumar, IAS & others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.23769-CII of 2008 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. COCP No.1920 of 2008 As per the averments made in this petition, vide judgment dated 27.3.2008, respondent No.2 was directed to decide the legal notice of the petitioner by passing a speaking order keeping in mind the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Vijay Bala v. State of Haryana passed in CWP No.5277 of 1999 decided on 20.7.2000. In compliance of the aforesaid order, respondent No.2 passed a speaking order dated 12.6.2008 (Annexure P-2) whereby the benefit of annual increment, medical leave and earned leave etc. was extended to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that in spite of the fact that the petitioner has been held entitled to the benefits as per Annexure P-2, the payment has not been released to her. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, COCP No.1920 of 2008(O&M) 2 reply by way of affidavit of Sandeep Garg, IAS, Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana, Chandigarh has been filed wherein it has been submitted as under:- “2. That in compliance of aforesaid order, the answering deponent being respondent No.2, passed the speaking order vide No.TE/160/88Admn-III dated 12.6.2008 on the legal notice of the petitioner. A photocopy of the speaking order is Annexure R-1. 3. That vide Annexure R-1, the petitioner has been allowed the benefit of 89 days/adhoc service towards annual increment, medical leave, earned leave. The relevant extract of Annexure R-1 reads as under:- “In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the department has decided to extend the benefits of annual increments, medical leave and earned leave for the period from 4.11.1997 to 30.9.2003 to the petitioner who served the department on adhoc basis similar to the other similar situated employee of the department.” 4. That as per judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases in Vijay Bala v. State of Haryana and Promila v. State of Haryana and other cases, the annual increment arrear has been restricted to 38 months preceding the filing of the writ petition. Accordingly, the similar situated employes have been awarded the arrear of annual increment of 38 months preceding the filing of the writ petition. The petitioner has received Rs.72,714/- as annual increment arrear. In COCP No.1920 of 2008(O&M) 3 fact she has been found to have received Rs.2711/- in excess of admissible amount due to miscalculation and she is liable to return Rs.2711/- excess amount drawn by her.” No counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to controvert the aforesaid averments made in the affidavit of respondent No.2. In view of the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 and the fact that there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, I am not inclined to proceed further in this petition. Rule discharged. November 20, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE