Civil Writ Petition No.11340 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11340 of 2006 Date of decision: April 04, 2008 Thakur Dass and others … Petitioners Versus P.S.E.B. and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.S. Boparai, Advocate for the respondents. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (ORAL) The petitioners pray for quashing the action of the respondents, vide which the salary of the petitioners for the month of June 2006 has been reduced with effect from 2002, as is clear from the bank statements (Annexure P-1) (collectively). Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the reductions were made from the salaries of the petitioners without giving them any notice or opportunity of hearing. Mr. Boparai, counsel for the respondents submits that vide Annexure R-4, the annual increments as well as salaries, which had been stopped, have now been restored and the arrears have been released. Civil Writ Petition No.11340 of 2006 2 Mr.Boparai further submits that the respondents had deducted some amounts from the salaries of the petitioners for a period of five months and now, when the increments and salaries have been restored to the petitioners therefore, whatever amounts have been deducted from the salaries of the petitioners are not liable to be restored back to them. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that as the salaries, which were reduced, have already been restored therefore, this writ petition has been rendered infructuous. As far as the question of refund of the amount, which has been deducted from the salaries of the petitioners for a period of five months is concerned, petitioners may file representation before the competent authority within a period of one month from today, which shall be decided within a further period of one month thereafter. Since the salaries of the petitioners have been restored along with the grant of annual increments, therefore we see no reason as to why the deductions made by the respondents be not refunded to the petitioners. [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 04, 2008. rps