AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Tewari, J.—Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as regards the withdrawal of the increment the petitioner has no grouse but no recovery should be made from him since he was not responsible for the grant of that increment. Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mrs. Monica Chhibber Sharma, learned DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply two copies of the petition to the learned DAG during the course of the day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.
Having regard to the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their counterreplies/affidavit(s), at this stage.
Counsel for the respondents has accepted that in case the petitioner is not responsible for the grant of the increment by misleading or any other misrepresentation, recovery cannot be made in terms of the Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram v. State of Haryana & Ors, 2009 (3) PLR 511.
Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the retiral dues of the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the petitioner is not responsible for the grant of the increment in question, no recovery be made in terms of the judgment in Budh Ram''s case (supra).
No order as to costs. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the respondents under the signatures of the Court Secretary.