C.W.P No. 3617 of 1986 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 3617 of 1986 Date of decision : May 07, 2009 Des Raj Sikka, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the official respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.4.1986 (Annexure P-12) whereby he had been reverted as Head Clerk. The brief facts are that the petitioner was promoted over his seniors on account of having passed the Assistant Grade Examination. That examination was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is consequent to the setting aside of the said examination that the entire seniority was re- worked and the petitioner was reverted. Even though there are many allegations and counter allegations with regard to the legality and propriety C.W.P No. 3617 of 1986 ::2:: of the impugned order, yet one salient fact which has emerged is that no notice or hearing was ever granted to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. This omission has been sought to be defended on the ground that this was a necessary exercise after the Assistant Grade Examination was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, it is now beyond the pale of any controversy that any order prejudicially affecting civil rights of a person cannot be passed without giving him notice or affording any opportunity of hearing. It is also not disputed that all the affected persons have now retired and, thus, the only benefit which can be given to the petitioner would be restricted only to certain retiral benefits. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 3.4.1986 (Annexure P-12) is set aside and the respondents are directed to grant to the petitioner all consequential benefits except salary for the period he did not work on the higher post. He would be entitled to re- fixation of his pay and to enhanced superannuation benefits. Considering that the impugned action is 23 years old, and the writ petition is also pending since 1986, needful be done within two months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 07, 2009. JUDGE `kk'