IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12516 of 2011 Ramesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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? Present: Mr.R.N.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 12.12.1995 on account of his being involved in a murder case. After trial, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and a fine of Rs.1000/- under Sections 304-I/149 IPC, RI for one year under Section 148 IPC and RI for three years under Section 450 IPC. The petitioner had filed an appeal before this Court and the judgment was reversed and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges levelled against him on 8.2.2005. Upon acquittal, the petitioner was reinstated on 11.5.2006. The petitioner, however, was denied pay and allowances other than subsistence allowance for the period he remained under suspension. The absence period of the petitioner on this count was ordered to be treated as a period spent on duty only for retiral benefits. The petitioner had challenged this order before this court through CWP No.19079 of 2009, but the said writ petition was dismissed. At that stage, the petitioner had made a prayer for considering his case for grant of increment and ACP scales. The Civil Writ Petition No.12516 of 2011 : 2 : petitioner was given liberty to file a representation qua this prayer with the respondents. The petitioner accordingly filed a representation, which has been rejected and he has now impugned this order. Once the challenge of the petitioner to order denying him benefits other than retiral benefits has been negated, this service obviously may not be open to be counted for the purpose of annual increment as the order makes it very clear that this service will be counted for the purpose of retiral benefits. If that happens, obviously the petitioner would not be entitled to count this service for the grant of ACP. If any interference in the impugned order is now made, it may be in contradiction of the earlier order passed by this court rejecting his challenge through order, Annexure P-8 and may amount to review. That order has acquired finality and is not put to challenge. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. July 26, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE