IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10614 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 10, 2010 Rajiv Bhalla & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents not to withdraw Order dated 22/27.8.2001 (Annexure P-4) in view of order Annexure P-10. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Director, Rural Development & Panchayats, Punjab, has passed Order Annexure P-10 which has subsequently been approved by the CWP No.10614 of 2010 [2] Secretary. Learned counsel contends that on the change of guard, order Annexure P-10 has been passed. 3. Order Annexure P-4 records that in partial modification of earlier order, Junior Engineers and Circle/Divisional Head Draftsmen who had been given current duty/additional charge of the post of Sub Divisional Officers prior to meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee on 27.6.1994 are promoted as Sub Divisional Officers w.e.f. 27.6.1994. This had been done on the advice of Department of Personnel dated 8.12.2000 (Annexure P-3). 4. Annexure P-10 records that Junior Engineers of the department who had current duty charge, were promoted as Sub Divisional Officers vide Order dated 7.4.1995 on the recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee dated 27.4.1994. Similarly, some Sub Divisional Officers who were directly recruited on the recommendations of Punjab Public Service Commission were issued appointment letters on 19.8.1994. The officers who were promoted as Sub Divisional Officers, represented while claiming promotion from the date of meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee i.e. 27.4.1994. The matter was considered and advice of CWP No.10614 of 2010 [3] Department of Personnel was sought in the year 2001. The Department of Personnel advised that those officers who were working as Sub Divisional Officers on current duty charge on the date of meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee and were found fit by the Committee for promotion, be promoted from the date of meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee. Accordingly, those officers were promoted as Sub Divisional Officers w.e.f. 27.4.1994 i.e. the date of meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee. 5. It seems that the decision was opposed by Sub Divisional Officers who were directly recruited on the recommendation of Punjab Public Service Commission. Opportunity of hearing was given to the promoted as well as directly recruited Sub Divisional Officers. Considering the claim, in the backdrop of facts, the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, vide Order Annexure P-10, has advised review of Order dated 22.8.2001 i.e. Annexure P-4 whereby promoted Sub Divisional Officers were given promotion from the date of meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee. 6. Annexure P-10 is only an advice/ noting sheet. Although the same has been approved by the Secretary, however it remains a fact that CWP No.10614 of 2010 [4] no order in consequent thereto has been passed. The petitioners are individual with individual rights. This petition is disposed of as premature with direction to the respondents that in case any order adverse to any employee is required to be passed, such person(s) would be given an opportunity of hearing before passing of the order. The order thus passed is required to reflect reasons of passing such order. (AJAI LAMBA) September 10, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?