LPA No. 898 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 898 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 24, 2011 State of Punjab …Appellant Versus Jaswant Singh ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The writ petitioner-respondent has approached this Court with the grievance that for the suspension period, the competent authority did not hold him entitled to pay and allowance what he was paid as subsistence allowance. The Competent Authority also declined his prayer vide order dated 22.10.1998 (P-5) that during the period of suspension, he was not to earn any increment. However, the learned Single Judge held that increments which were admissible to him from 01.05.1988 to 01.05.1994 during the suspension period could not be stopped. The Competent Authority by way of order of punishment imposed upon the writ petitioner-respondent, the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 2. Having heard learned State counsel, we are of the LPA No. 898 of 2011 (O&M) -2- considered view that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge do not warrant interference by this Court in this appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent. If seven increments of the writ petitioner-respondent during the period of suspension are not paid then it would amount to imposing the punishment of stoppage of nine increments, which is not the intention of the order of punishment. There is no rule to the contrary either cited before the learned Single Judge or before us which may warrant such course of action. The appeal is wholly without merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 3. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the appeal on merit, we do no wish to pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay of 63 days in filing of the instant appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE May 24, 2011 Atul