IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.8595 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 21, 2011. Gian Kaur .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.H.S.Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, 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 husband of the petitioner, namely, Mela Ram was working as an Assistant Foreman Special and retired as such from the office of the Executive Engineer, Communication Division, Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpur Kandi, District Hoshiarpur w.e.f. 31.7.2000 on attaining the age of superannuation. The husband of the petitioner was granted pension and meanwhile he died on 20.9.2006 and thereafter the petitioner was granted family pension. Now the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.9.2001 (Annexure P-1) whereby the retrenchee increments given to the husband of the petitioner have been withdrawn and a recovery of Rs.16445/- has been sought to be effected from the petitioner. The CWP No.8595 of 2011 [2] petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 23.4.2007 (Annexure P-2) whereby the special increments granted to the husband of the petitioner has been ordered to be withdrawn and recovery has been ordered to be made from the retiral benefits. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the controversy involved in this case stands settled by a decision dated 27.5.2009 rendered by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No.5568 of 2008 (Charan Dass and others versus State of Punjab and others), the concluding para whereof reads as follows:- “In view of the above, the respondents are not entitled to effect any recovery from the petitioners either on account of retrenchment increments or special increments allegedly erroneously given. However, the respondents are entitled to re-fix the emoluments by reducing the special increment only. Consequently, the pay of the petitioners will be re-fixed and in case of those employees who have already retired from service, the retiral benefits shall be released within a period of two months. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the delayed payment of pension/retiral benefits at the statutory rate wherever admissible and at the rate of 6% on pension and other retiral benefits where statutory interest is not provided for. Any amount deducted from the retiral benefits of the salary of the petitioners shall be refunded within the aforesaid period.” The writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the afore- stated decision of this Court in Charan Dass's case (supra). Dasti. July 21, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE