IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.17870 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 22, 2011. Kesri Ram .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.H.S.Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. -.- 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) Notice of motion. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Let four copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel during the course of day failing which the order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioners was working as a Fitter on work-charge basis with respondent No.3, namely, the Executive Engineer, Field Mechanical CWP No.17870 of 2011 [2] & C.P.Division, Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpur Kandi, District Gurdaspur, and has retired w.e.f. 30.04.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation. He seeks quashing of the order vide which the retrenchee increments given to him have been withdrawn and a recovery has been sought to be effected from him. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the controversy involved in this case stands settled by a decision dated 27.5.2009 rendered by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No.5568 of 2008 (Charan Dass and others versus State of Punjab and others), the concluding para whereof reads as follows:- “In view of the above, the respondents are not entitled to effect any recovery from the petitioners either on account of retrenchment increments or special increments allegedly erroneously given. However, the respondents are entitled to re-fix the emoluments by reducing the special increment only. Consequently, the pay of the petitioners will be re-fixed and in case of those employees who have already retired from service, the retiral benefits shall be released within a period of two months. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the delayed payment of pension/retiral benefits at the statutory rate wherever admissible and at the rate of 6% on pension and other retiral benefits where statutory interest is not provided for. Any amount deducted from the retiral benefits of the salary of the petitioners shall be refunded within the aforesaid period.” The aforesaid decision has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.9.2010 passed in a bunch of appeals, including L.P.A. No.1161 of 2009 (Tarlok Chand and others versus State of Punjab and others), though the SLP (Civil) No.13027 of 2011 preferred by the State of Punjab is stated to be pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. CWP No.17870 of 2011 [3] The writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the afore- stated decisions of this Court in Charan Dass's case (supra) and Tarlok Chand and others' case (supra), subject to the condition that this order shall be implemented after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the parties shall abide by the said order of the Apex Court even if no separate SLP is filed in this case. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. September 22, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE