IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.12853 of 2004 Date of Decision : August 24, 2011. Dr.Seema Garg .....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Harinder Kumar Aurora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 6.11.2001 and 29.4.2002 (Annexures P-4 and P-3, respectively) whereby the benefit of six advance increments granted to her in terms of the orders dated 21.8.1990 and 27.10.1993, have been withdrawn. The increments were statedly granted in compliance with an order passed by this Court in CWP No.6437 of 2001 (Dr.Rimply Purewal and others versus State of Punjab and otheres) a copy of which is placed on record as Annexure P-5. Somewhat similar question, namely, as to whether the additional increments granted to the Doctors on the basis of higher qualifications possessed by them in terms of the Government Instructions dated 8.10.1993, could be withdrawn in the manner as has been done in the present case, came up for consideration before this Court in CWP CWP No.12853 of 2004 [2] No.17156 of 2008 decided on 1.7.2009 (Dr.Jagmohan Singh and others versus The State of Punjab and others) and the same was allowed with the following observations:- “..It appears that the revised pay scale has nothing to do with the grant of benefit of additional increment under the aforesaid circular. It has only relation with the acquiring of the Higher Qualification specified therein. In view of the above circumstances, the action of the respondents withdrawing the benefit of additional increments retrospectively is unsustainable in law. The impugned order to the effect it directs the withdrawal of the benefit of additional increments and consequential recovery from the petitioners is liable to be quashed. I order accordingly......” The Court in Jagmohan Singh's case (supra) has further observed that in the light of the Full Bench decision in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 22.5.2009, no recovery could otherwise be effected from the writ petitioners. In the instant case also, the petitioner was granted the increments in lieu of her higher qualification and in accordance with the Government Instructions dated 8.10.1993. The controversy thus stands answered in favour of the petitioner vide the above stated decision. The present writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms of Dr.Jagmohan Singh's case (supra) and the impugned orders are hereby quashed. Dasti. August 24, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE