IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 10689 of 2008. Decided on: 20.12.2010. __________________________________________________________ Madan Singh Chauhan. … Petitioner. Versus Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry. … Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Onkar Jairarth, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): Petitioner was given the benefit of two advance increments. However, the same was withdrawn. In the reply it has been stated that the benefit of two increments was given inadvertently and on the basis of the objection raised by the Local Audit vide Annexure R-1, the pay of the petitioner was re-fixed vide office order dated 23.12.1994, Annexure A-7. The petitioner has not been heard before taking a decision unilaterally to withdraw the benefit of two increments, which was given on the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. 2. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-7, dated 23.12.1994 and Annexure A-17, dated 30.1.2004 are quashed and set aside. However, liberty is 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - reserved to the respondent-University to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. It is made clear that while proceeding with the matter it shall be taken in to consideration that the benefit of two increments was given on the recommendations of duly constituted Selection Committee. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 20, 2010. (sck).