IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 17471 of 1991. Date of Decision: 27th April, 2009. S.Gurbax Singh ....Petitioner through Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ..Respondents through Mr. G.S.Atttariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 22.11.1991 [Annexure P-6] whereby he has been ordered to be reverted to the post of Senior Assistant retrospectively w.e.f. 31.10.1986. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 15.10.1971. He belongs to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste. He was promoted as Assistant on 18.2.1976. The petitioner was further promoted as Superintendent Grade-IV on 31.10.1986. The said post was subsequently re-designated as Superintendent Grade II. The petitioner continued to work as Superintendent Grade II till the impugned order was passed. While issuing notice of motion, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.11.1991 stayed operation of the impugned reversion order. Thereafter, counter-affidavits have been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as private respondent No.3. Suffice it to note that there have been multiple litigation between the petitioner, private respondent and some other officials for settlement of their inter-se seniority dispute and consequential promotion. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 22.11.1991 can not sustain firstly for the reason that no show cause notice has been served upon the petitioner; secondly, the petitioner could not have been reverted retrospectively w.e.f. 31.10.1986 by an order passed on 22.11.1991. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioner was appointed way back in the year 1971. In all probability, by now, he may have been retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The interim stay order has been operating in his favour from last more than 17 years. The equity is equally strong in favour of the petitioner. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.11.1991 [Annexure P-6] is hereby quashed. This, however, shall not preclude respondent No. 3 from the benefits, if any, to which he is entitled on account of civil Court decree passed in his favour. No costs. April 27, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE