JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The case has a chequered history.The appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioner’) initially, in the year 2001 challenged his transfer from Chakkar to Nahan successfully before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal. This order of the learned Tribunal was challenged by the Corporation before this Court in a writ petition and was ultimately disposed of in the year 2009 by setting aside only the order of costs imposed on the Federation. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was transferred in the year 2006 from Chakkar to Totu which transfer too came to be challenged before the learned Tribunal, who vide its order dated 11.01.2007 directed the maintenance of status quo. On 08.08.2007, the learned Tribunal clarified its order that status quo meant only that the petitioner stood relieved as per the orders dated 14.12.2006. 2.It appears that because of the pendency of various petitions and orders passed from time to time, the petitioner did not join or was not permitted to join at the place of posting either at the original station or the transferred station, despite his having made various requests. This led the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against him against which the petitioner filed CWP No.2936 of 2008. The punishment of barring two increments with cumulative effect was set aside by this Court after recording the apology tendered by the petitioner. The petitioner undertook to join at Totu on 31 .08.2010 and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.08.2010 disposed of all the three writ petitions in the following terms:- “6. CWP(T) No.3266 of 2008 is disposed of permitting the petitioner to join duty at Totu on 31st August, 2010. Since the petitioner had joining time of 10 days, the period between 24.12.2006 to 31.08.2010 will be treated as leave, without allowances. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner has leave of any kind due to his credit, the same shall be adjusted and to that extent the petitioner will be entitled to eligible allowances. However, to remove any confusion in this regard in future, it is made clear that there shall not be any break in service and the petitioner shall be treated to have continued in service except for the purpose of monetary benefits. 7. However, to remove any confusion in this regard in future, it is made clear that there shall not be any break in service and the petitioner shall be treated to have continued in service except for the purpose of monetary benefits. 7. CWP No.2936 of 2008 is disposed of setting aside the entire disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner on account of his non-joining duty at Totu in view of the order, we have passed in CWP(T) No.3266 of 2008. 8. CWP(T) No.16570 of 2008 is disposed ofrecording the apology tendered by the petitioner for his ill advised correspondence made by the petitioner outside the establishment and with a direction that he shall conduct himself strictly in accordance with the Conduct Rules of the Federation and continue in service to the satisfaction of his superiors as well. Hence we set aside the punishment of the barring of two increments with cumulative effect.” 3.The matter did not end here. According to the petitioner, the period between 24.12.2006 to 31 .08.2010 was ordered to be treated as leave without allowance and it was made clear in the order itself that in case the petitioner has leave of any kind due to his credit, the same shall be adjusted and to that extent the petitioner would be entitled to the eligible allowances and accordingly the Court had further clarified that in order to remove any confusion in this regard in future, it was made clear that there should not be any break in the service and the petitioner shall be treated to have continued in service except for the purpose of monetary benefits. 4.The respondent No.1 decided the leave case of the petitioner vide Office Order dated 30.12.2010 in which leave was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for the period with effect from 25.12.2006 to 05.11.2008 and the remaining period with effect from 06.11.2008 to 30.08.2010 was disallowed being not covered under any kind of leave due and vide order dated 30.12.2010 this period was also not counted for the purpose of grant of annual increment without monetary benefits. 5.The petitioner preferred a representation against the latter part of this order which was rejected by the respondent No.1 on 16.11.2011. Aggrieved by the rejection of his representation, the petitioner filed CWP No.7181 of 2012 before this Court which came to be decided by learned Single Judge of this Court on 24.12.2012. 5.The petitioner preferred a representation against the latter part of this order which was rejected by the respondent No.1 on 16.11.2011. Aggrieved by the rejection of his representation, the petitioner filed CWP No.7181 of 2012 before this Court which came to be decided by learned Single Judge of this Court on 24.12.2012. The petitioner was directed to be treated on extraordinary leave with effect from 06.11.2008 to 30.08.2010 without monetary benefits. But, according to the petitioner, the words ‘including increments’ appearing in the judgment were contrary to the judgment of Division Bench dated 27.08.2010 as stoppage of annual increment virtually amounts a major penalty in the eyes of law. The learned Single Judge while deciding the petition made the following observations in Para-10 of its order:- “10 Mr. G.R.Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner orally clarifies that petitioner is not claiming monetary benefits for the period w.e.f. 6.11.2008 to 30.8.2010. It is thus clarified that this period shall not be taken into account for the purposes of monetary benefits, including increments.” Since the observations in Para-10 were based upon the oral submissions/admission of the petitioner through his counsel, therefore, this constrained the petitioner to file review petition before the learned Single Judge seeking therein the recalling of such statement. However, the said review petition was dismissed vide order dated 17.06.2013 with the observations “there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Dismissed as such”. It is in this background that the petitioner is before us. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. It is not disputed before us that the case of the petitioner was required to be determined in terms of orders passed in CWP(T) No.3266 of 2008 ( Para 2 supra). 7. The Division Bench of this Court had made it absolutely clear that:- (i)incase the petitioner has leave of any kind due to his credit, the same shall be adjusted and to that extent the petitioner will be entitled to eligible allowances; (ii) that there shall not be any break in service and the petitioner shall be treated to have continued in service except for the purpose of monetary benefits. Even the learned Single Judge had categorically held that the respondents had not complied with the directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court in its letter and spirit and accordingly held the petitioner to be entitled to the extraordinary leave with effect from 06.11.2008 to 30.08.2010. However, it appears that while holding the petitioner to be disentitled to the monetary benefits for the period with effect from 06.11.2008 to 30.08.2010, even the increments have been included in the term ‘monetary benefits’. This probably may have arisen because of the statement made by the petitioner, who had sought to have the said order recalled by moving an application by way of review. But, unfortunately, even the review petition was dismissed. 8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents claims that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is in consonance with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others versus Ashok Kumar Sharma (2011) 13 SCC 27 and has relied upon the following observations made therein:- “14. A conjoint reading of the abovementioned orders shows that even though the period between his dismissal from service and reinstatement was regularized by grant of half-pay leave and extraordinary leave, the respondent was neither paid salary for the period of extraordinary leave nor was that period treated as duty. In its very nature, the decision of the competent authority to grant extraordinary leave to the respondent was intended to avoid break in service which would have entailed the consequence of depriving him of all the benefits of his past service from 1974 to 1984. 15. However, the period of extraordinary leave was not and cannot be treated as period spent on duty. If that was not to be so, the respondent would have claimed salary for the period of 5 years, 7 months and 27 days and questioned the decision of the Commandant, 13th Battalion to postpone the date of his increment. However, the fact of the matter is that the respondent did not question the order passed by the Commandant, 13th Battalion for shifting the date of increment by a period of 5 years, 7 months and 27 days. Therefore, that period cannot be counted as part of 24 years’ service, which is sine qua non for grant of the benefit of second financial upgradation in terms of the Scheme. 16. Therefore, that period cannot be counted as part of 24 years’ service, which is sine qua non for grant of the benefit of second financial upgradation in terms of the Scheme. 16. As a sequel to the above discussion, we hold that the direction given by the learned Single Judge, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court for grant of the benefit of second financial upgradation to the respondent with effect from 1-3-1998 cannot be sustained.” 9. We are afraid that the fact situation obtaining in this case is absolutely different from the one in Ashok Kumar Sharma’s case (supra). In this case, admittedly, the period with effect from 24.12.2006 to 31.08.2010 has already been directed to be treated as leave without allowances and it was also made clear that in case the petitioner has leave of any kind due to his credit, the same shall be adjusted and to that extent the petitioner would also be held entitled to the eligible allowances. It was further made clear that in no case would there be a break in service and the petitioner shall be treated to have continued in service, except for the purpose of monetary benefits. 10.The appellant in Para-8 of the appeal has made the following averments:- “8. That the appellant had prayed for a very limited relief in the Review Petition that the judgment dated 24.12.2012 may kindly be modified to the extent that the periods of Extraordinary leave w.e.f. 6.11.2008 to 30.8.2010 be taken into account for the purposes of grant of annual increments which fell due on 01.012009 and 01.01.2010 but without monetary benefits and the petitioner will be entitled to the monetary benefits of these two increments from the date of his joining duty in pursuance of Hon’ble High Court’s order dated 27.08.2010 i.e. w.e.f. 31.08.2010 onwards. In other sense, the words “including increments” should be deleted from the judgment dated 24.12.2012 which is a patent error because the judgment dated 27.08.2010 is very much clear that there shall not be any break in service of the appellant and the appellant shall be treated to be continued in service except for the purpose of monetary benefits. In other sense, the words “including increments” should be deleted from the judgment dated 24.12.2012 which is a patent error because the judgment dated 27.08.2010 is very much clear that there shall not be any break in service of the appellant and the appellant shall be treated to be continued in service except for the purpose of monetary benefits. The Hon’ble Single Judge has rightly granted the relief to the appellant that the period from 06.11.2008 to 30.08.2010 be treated as Extraordinary leave but the words “including increments” has wrongly been mentioned which is totally contrary to the judgment dated 27.08.2010 and it being a patent error in the judgment dated 24.12.2012, the same is required to be rectified. Hence, the order dated 17.06.2013 is liable to be set aside.” 11.It is settled law that the Court is bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in the Court. The statement made in the judgment cannot be contradicted by the statement at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If it is observed in the judgment that something was done, said or admitted before it then that is the last word on the subject. 12.In State of Maharashtra versus Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another AIR 1982 SC 1249 it was held that :- “4 If a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error(Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhusudan v. Chandrabati, AIR 1917 PC 30). That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there “ 13.In this case, as observed above, the petitioner had sought to bring these facts to the notice of the same Court by way of review petition which unfortunately has been dismissed. Taking into account all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the petitioner deserves to be afforded an opportunity so as to enable him to explain his position which he had otherwise sought to do by way of review. Taking into account all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the petitioner deserves to be afforded an opportunity so as to enable him to explain his position which he had otherwise sought to do by way of review. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 24.12.2012 is set aside and the writ petition is restored to its original number. The Registry is directed to list the writ petition before the Bench having the roster on 05.05.2014.