IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 12018/2008 Decided on:29.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Padam Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was granted two increments with effect from 23.9.1997 on confirmation to the post of Head Teacher. The same have been withdrawn unilaterally vide memorandum dated 26.5.2006. Petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of memorandum dated 26.5.2006. He has neither misled nor mis-represented nor played any fraud at the time of release of two increments with effect from 23.9.1997 on confirmation. This question is no more res intergra in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others versus State of Bihar and others, (2009) 3 SCC 475. 2. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexures A-2 dated 26.5.2005 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are restrained from effecting any recovery from the salary of the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 29.12.2010 *awasthi*