Civil Writ Petition No. 9162 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9162 of 2011 Date of Decision : 25.5.2011 Satwinder Kaur .......... Petitioner Versus Punjabi University Patiala & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been imposed with punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect with a further order of recovery of Rs. 2,82,000/-, which the respondent-University is insisting upon lump-sum payment and the petitioner being a petty employee is unable to do so. He further contends that the petitioner had already moved a representation to the Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala dated 3.2.2011 (Annexure P-7) making such a request but no decision thereon has been taken. His further contention is that despite passing of the order of punishment dated 30.11.2010 the suspension of the petitioner, which was pending disciplinary proceedings, has yet not been revoked and she has not been allowed to rejoin despite the submission of a representation dated 2.12.2010 (Annexure P-6) to the Deputy Registrar, Punjabi University, Civil Writ Petition No. 9162 of 2011 -2- Patiala, nor has the suspension allowance been increased from 40% to 80% per month as per the rules applicable to the petitioner. He at this stage prays that directions may be issued to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass necessary appropriate orders at an early date. In view of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the representations dated 3.2.2011 (Annexure P-7) wherein a prayer has been made for recovering the amount in installments sympathetically, and further in view of the practical difficulties which the petitioner is likely to face, a further direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 2.12.2010 (Annexure P-6) wherein the petitioner is claiming reinstatement in service after the issuance of the punishment order and for further enhancement of the suspension allowance, which she is entitled to as per the rules, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The order so passed on the representations of the petitioner be conveyed to the petitioner forthwith. 25.5.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE