IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.WP No. 7843 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 29th July, 2011. Basant Singh Petitioner through Mr. V.K.Shukla, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mrs. Charu Tuli, DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 7843 and 7861 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 7843 of 2010. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 14.07.2006 [Annexure P-3] whereby his pay has been re-fixed and the benefit of five increments earlier granted to him on account of military service rendered by him during the second National Emergency, has been withdrawn. Consequential recovery is also sought to be effected from the petitioner. Before joining the civil employment, the petitioner served in the Indian Army w.e.f. 26.10.1965 to 31.10.1980 as a Sepoy. First National Emergency was declared w.e.f. 26.10.1962 to 10.01.1968, whereas the Second National Emergency was declared from 03.12.1971 to 26.03.1977. The impugned order reveals that the benefit of two annual increments granted to the petitioner for the service rendered by him during the First National Emergency has been protected but the five extra increments apparently granted to the petitioner for the service rendered by him during the Second National Emergency have been ordered to be withdrawn. So far as recovery part is concerned, it is by now well settled that no recovery can be effected from an employee if he was not guilty of any concealment or inducement etc. as held by Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram & Ors. V State of Haryana & Ors., 2009[3] PLR, 511. The impugned order to the extent of recovery is accordingly quashed. Recovery, if any, made from the petitioners shall be refunded. Similarly, the petitioner's entitlement to claim the benefit of military service rendered during the First National Emergency is not in dispute and as such whatever benefits he is entitled to in lieu of that service shall have to be granted to him. As regards the petitioner's claim for the benefit of Second National Emergency, he has placed reliance upon the notification dated 15th October, 2009 [Annexure P-5]. Unfortunately, the reply/affidavit does not refer to the said notification nor it explains as to why the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of service rendered by him during the Second National Emergency. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioners for the grant of the benefit of service rendered by them during the Second National Emergency in the light of the Government notification dated 15th October, 2009 [Annexure P-5] and pass an appropriate order in this regard within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. Dasti. July 29, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE