IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18647 of 2010 Date of Decision: 13.09.2011 Devinder Saini ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Monika Chibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. I.S.Saggu, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** SURYA KANT, J.(Oral) The petitioner and respondent No. 3 both joined the Department of Co-operation as Steno-Typists. It appears that the petitioner continuously remained senior to respondent No.3 in the said cadre as he was higher in merit than respondent No.3 in the selection list forwarded by the Punjab Subordinate Service Selection Board. In the appointment order dated 23.07.1998 (Annexure P-1) also the petitioner figured at Sr. No. 1 whereas respondent No.3 figured at Sr. No. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner and respondent No.3 both were promoted as Junior Scale Stenographers vide an order dated 05.03.2002 (Annexure P-21). Later on, the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab passed the impugned order dated 16.08.2010 CWP No. 18647 of 2010 [2] (Annexure P-26) granting retrospective promotion to respondent No.3 as Junior Scale Stenographer w.e.f. 09.11.2001, namely, when he is said to have passed the Junior Scale Stenography test. No show cause or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner whose seniority in the cadre of Junior Scale Stenographer obviously stood affected by the impugned order. Since the impugned order visits the petitioner with adverse consequences, in my considered view, it was imperative upon the authorities to observe the principles of natural justice before passing the same. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.08.2010 (Annexure P-26) is hereby quashed. The consequential seniority list issued subsequently is also set-aside. However, liberty is granted to the official respondents to re- determine the claim of the petitioner or respondent No.3 in accordance with the principles of natural justice and law. Dasti. 13.09.2011 (SURYA KANT) 'ravinder' JUDGE