IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 201 Isam Singh State of Haryana and CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the impugned order dated 04.05.2001 (Annexure P submits that, as per the information received by her, the petitioner expired in knowledge regarding the legal representative(s) of the deceased petitioner. respondent granted to the petitioner vide order dated 01.07.1992. The said increment was sought to be withdrawn after a lapse of about nine CWP-11437-2001 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11437 of 2001 Date of decision : Isam Singh Versus State of Haryana and another CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Simran Chahal, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, DAG, Haryana. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the impugned order dated 04.05.2001 (Annexure P-11). Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner submits that, as per the information received by her, the petitioner expired in December, 2025. She further submits that she has no knowledge regarding the legal representative(s) of the deceased petitioner. It is further submitted that vide the impugned order, the respondent-State unilaterally withdrew the increment which had been ranted to the petitioner vide order dated 01.07.1992. The said increment was sought to be withdrawn after a lapse of about nine 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 11437 of 2001 (O & M) Date of decision :-13.07.2026 …..Petitioner …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA s. Simran Chahal, Advocate as Amicus Curiae Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, DAG, Haryana. Prayer in the present writ petition is for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the impugned order Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner submits that, as per the information received by her, the petitioner December, 2025. She further submits that she has no knowledge regarding the legal representative(s) of the deceased- It is further submitted that vide the impugned order, the State unilaterally withdrew the increment which had been ranted to the petitioner vide order dated 01.07.1992. The said increment was sought to be withdrawn after a lapse of about nine VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 17.57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document years by virtue of the impugned order dated 04.05.2001 (Annexure P 11), without affording any opportunity of hearing to the peti thereby violating the principles of natural justice. increment had been erroneously granted to the petitioner in contravention of the applicable rules and, therefore, the same was withdrawn by way the written statement dated 11.02.2002 filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 to contend that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon paragraph 2 of the preliminary submissions in the written statement, which reads as under:- this Court, vide order dated 06.08.2001, had stayed the recovery sought to be effected from the petitioner. during the pendency of the present writ petition and the Amicus Curiae is not aware of the particulars of the legal CWP-11437-2001 (O & M) years by virtue of the impugned order dated 04.05.2001 (Annexure P 11), without affording any opportunity of hearing to the peti thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the increment had been erroneously granted to the petitioner in contravention of the applicable rules and, therefore, the same was withdrawn by way of the impugned order. He has further referred to the written statement dated 11.02.2002 filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 to contend that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon paragraph 2 of the preliminary submissions in the written statement, which reads - “….The pay of petitioner has not been fixed till date on the basis of letter dated 4.5.2001 Annexure P/11 as this matter is dealt with separately by the respondent No.2 in vie As the pay of the petitioner has not been fixed till date as per letter dated 4.5.2001, no question of any recovery from the petitioner arises at this stage…..” At this stage, learned Amicus Curiae has pointed out that urt, vide order dated 06.08.2001, had stayed the recovery sought to be effected from the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has expired during the pendency of the present writ petition and the Amicus Curiae is not aware of the particulars of the legal 2 years by virtue of the impugned order dated 04.05.2001 (Annexure P- 11), without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. , learned State counsel submits that the increment had been erroneously granted to the petitioner in contravention of the applicable rules and, therefore, the same was of the impugned order. He has further referred to the written statement dated 11.02.2002 filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 to contend that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon paragraph 2 of the preliminary submissions in the written statement, which reads “….The pay of petitioner has not been fixed till date on the basis of letter dated 4.5.2001 Annexure P/11 as this matter is dealt with separately by the respondent No.2 in view of letter dated 23.5.2001. As the pay of the petitioner has not been fixed till date as per letter dated 4.5.2001, no question of any recovery from the petitioner arises at this At this stage, learned Amicus Curiae has pointed out that urt, vide order dated 06.08.2001, had stayed the recovery Heard learned counsel for the parties. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has expired during the pendency of the present writ petition and the learned Amicus Curiae is not aware of the particulars of the legal VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 17.57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document representative(s) of the deceased disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. However, liberty is granted to the legal representative(s), if an petitioner to seek revival of the present writ petition by moving an appropriate application within a period of advised. given in the Memo of Parties. July 13, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No CWP-11437-2001 (O & M) representative(s) of the deceased-petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. However, liberty is granted to the legal representative(s), if an petitioner to seek revival of the present writ petition by moving an appropriate application within a period of Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. Copy of this order be sent at the address of the petitioner given in the Memo of Parties. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 3 petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. However, liberty is granted to the legal representative(s), if any, of the deceased- petitioner to seek revival of the present writ petition by moving an appropriate application within a period of six months from today, if so Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. sent at the address of the petitioner Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 17.57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document