THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3388 OF 2006 O R D E R: The petitioner challenges the order dated 29.4.2005, whereunder a sum of Rs.18,712/- was directed to be recovered from him, at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. The petitioner states that he was not put on notice, before the recovery was directed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was not put on notice, before the impugned order was passed. The fact, however, remains that the recovery is proposed, on account of the fact that the punishment of postponement of increment, with cumulative effect, inflicted vide order dated 25.3.1993, was not implemented, and the differential amount is sought to be recovered. Another important aspect is that while admitting the writ petition, this court did not grant any interim order, and not only the entire amount is recovered, but also the petitioner retired from service. Therefore, nothing remains to be decided, in this writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ 2nd July 2008 PAN