IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 12337 of 1989 Date of Decision: May 1, 2009 Veeran Vali ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 23.1.1989 (P-4), which contemplates holding of an inquiry against the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of pay, entries in Service Book etc. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before the Motion Bench on 26.9.1989, operation of the aforesaid order was stayed and the petition was admitted. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has retired from service in the year 2002. 3. In the preliminary objection of the written statement it has been pointed out that the department has not issued any final order and the matter was under consideration on administrative side. C.W.P. No. 12337 of 1989 It has further been asserted that no recovery order has been passed so far by the competent authority. The written statement was filed on 29.7.1991. 4. At the hearing, learned State counsel has pointed out that the petitioner stands retired in 2002 on attaining superannuation. The basic reason for staying order proposing to hold inquiry was based on an anonymous complaint. Moreover, the petitioner was given the benefit of advance increments on the basis of her postgraduate qualification when her writ petition bearing C.W.P. No. 4836 of 1986 was decided by this Court in her favour on 4.2.1989. A copy of the judgment of the aforesaid decision has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. Therefore, the allegation made in para 1 of the impugned order that she has got undue advantage of three increments on the basis of her postgraduate degree would not be sustainable. Moreover, the complaint is anonymous and should not have been entertained. Therefore, impugned order (P-4) is liable to be set aside. 5. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition succeeds. Order dated 23.1.1989 (P-4) is set aside. There should not be any impediment in granting the retiral benefits to the petitioner, if already not granted. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) May 1, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2