IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19117 of 2009 Date of Decision : March 11, 2010. Harjeet Kaur and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.B.S.Chahal, 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) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.19117 and 19496 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts and involved in both these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition no.19117 of 2009. The petitioners have questioned the action of the respondents in withdrawing one additional increment which was granted to them at the time of their promotion from the post of Punjabi/Hindi Teachers to that of Punjabi/Hindi Masters. They also seek a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondents from effecting any recovery as a result of the withdrawal of C.W.P.No .19117 of 2009 2 the increment. The petitioners also seek refund of the amount already recovered from them. During the course of hearing, it is not disputed that the first issue, namely, challenge to the withdrawal of the additional increment, stands answered against the petitioners by a decision of this Court dated 6.3.2009 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.3790 of 2006 (Neelam Bali versus State of Punjab). As regards the recovery sought to be effected from the petitioners, the controversy has been set at rest by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) S.C.T.333. Since the petitioners are not accused of misleading the authorities and/or playing any fraud etc., no recovery can be allowed to be effected from them. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. While the order of withdrawal of one additional increment granted to the petitioners on their promotion to the posts of Masters is upheld, the consequential recovery order is set-aside. It is directed that if any recovery has been effected from the petitioners, the same shall be refunded to them within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. March 11, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE