IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.3381 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 25, 2011. Darshana Devi and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Raj Kumar Arya, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. -.- 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 petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure P-1) whereby they have been reverted from the post of Development Officer (Women Programme) to the post of Mukh Sevika. The impugned order has been passed on the plea that the petitioners failed to pass the departmental examination which was one of the condition imposed by the Departmental Promotion Committee while recommending their promotions. While issuing notice of motion, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.3.2009 directed the respondent to maintain status-quo with regard to the position of the petitioners as it existed on that CWP No.3381 of 2009 [2] day. Consequently, the petitioners continued to hold the posts of Development Officers (W.P.). The respondent has filed the reply affidavit maintaining that while promoting the petitioners vide order dated 30.7.2001, the condition of passing the departmental examination was imposed and the said condition was consistent with the draft rules which were notified on 20.5.2002. It is averred that since the petitioners could not qualify the departmental examination that they have been rightly reverted. During the pendency of this writ petition, petitioner Nos.1 & 2 (Darshana Devi and Raj Kumari, respectively) have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. That being so, the writ petition qua them is allowed to the extent that since they continued to hold the post of Development Officer (W.S.) till their retirement, the respondent shall release their retiral dues keeping in view the pay and emoluments received by them on the said promotional post. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. As regards to petitioner No.3 (Manjit Kaur), it is not in dispute that the impugned order has been passed without serving any show cause notice. The said petitioner worked on the promotional post for a period of more than 8 years and in these circumstances, the respondent ought to have given an opportunity of hearing before passing the reversion order especially when it is debatable as to whether the Service Rules which came into force on 20.5.2002 can be applied retrospectively qua the promotion of CWP No.3381 of 2009 [3] the petitioners which took place in July, 2001. Consequently and for the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition qua petitioner No.3 is allowed to the extent that the impugned order is set-aside with liberty to the respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and after giving an opportunity of hearing to petitioner No.3. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. July 25, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE