C.W.P. No.9893 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.9893 of 2007 Date of Decision: 12.09.2011 Pawan Kumar Singla ....Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & ors. ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate for Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders whereby the punishment of warning and stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect have been awarded to the petitioner (Annexures P-6 and P-12, respectively). On 21.02.2011, the learned Single Bench of this Court has pleased to observe as under :- “ The petitioner was imposed a minor punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. Before the said punishment could be given effect to, the petitioner sought voluntary C.W.P. No.9893 of 2007 2 retirement and as a result, now his pension has been fixed at the reduced sum of amount. That was not the intention while imposing this punishment. The stoppage of increment is now having permanent effect on the petitioner. This fact is not in serious dispute. The petitioner has challenged this punishment primarily on the ground that having initiated a procedure for major punishment, the respondents could not have reverted back to award the minor penalty, besides the submission that the punishment is having unfair effect on the punishment of the petitioner. Let the counsel for the respondents have instructions in this regard in case the situation can be remedied in view of the fact, as noticed above.” In pursuance to the same, the order dated 01.07.2011 has been placed on record. As per the said order, the punishment of one annual increment without future effect was reconsidered by the Competent Authority. It was found that this punishment has permanent impact on the pension of the official due to the voluntary retirement of the petitioner sought from 31.05.2005. Accordingly, the Competent Authority reviewed the case and decided to recover the amount equivalent to one increment from the petitioner in such a manner that it does not have impact on reduction of pension. In view of the order dated 01.07.2011, the present petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 12.09.2011 JUDGE gurpreet