Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Referring to paragraph no.11 of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the previous writ proceeding vide W.P.(S) No. 1267 of 2003, the petitioner was one of the applicants. The said writ petition was disposed of on 15.7.2008 in the following terms: In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned orders issued by the respondents as contained in Annexures 6 to 12 are hereby quashed. The respondents, if necessary, may make a fresh demand from the petitioners, but before doing that, they shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by way of notice giving therein details of the basis of computation and of the amounts purported to have been paid in excess to the petitioners.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of a direction issued by this Court, the respondents neither issued a fresh demand nor refunded the alleged excess amount which was deducted from the pension of the petitioner and others.
(3.) Ms. Bharti Singh, the learned J.C. to Sr. S.C.-III, however, refers to the stand taken by the State in W.P.(S) No.1267 of 2003 and contends that the petitioner and others, who were parties in the previous writ proceeding, had given undertaking to refund excess payment, if any, made to them.;