Civil Writ Petition No. 17781 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 17781 of 2006 Date of decision: 30.7.2009 Raj Kumari ...petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ...respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. R.K. Arora , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner who belongs to Backward Class category was appointed as Clerk on 10.10.1978. Her name was sponsored by Employment Exchange. The appointment was made on adhoc basis. Her services were regularised w.e.f. 15.9.1982. This order was passed on 2.9.1983. On the basis of seniority the petitioner was promoted as Assistant w.e.f. 14.12.1989 against the Backward Class category. The promotion, however, was kept in abeyance and was subsequently cancelled on 4.1.1991. The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2161 of 1995, which would allowed by this Court on 1.11.1995 and the impugned order withdrawing the promotion was passed in violation of principle of natural justice. The petitioner says that she was not heard before withdrawing the order of promotion. Subsequently, the order withdrawing the promotion was withdrawn and the petitioner was ordered to be promoted w.e.f. 14.12.1989 which was the date of the original promotion granted to the petitioner. In the year 1998, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 12573 of Civil Writ Petition No. 17781 of 2006 2 1998 for fixing her pay and seniority w.e.f. 14.12.1989 in the cadre of Assistant. This writ petition was disposed of as infructuous on the basis of order dated 16.10.1988 passed by Director General of Police, Haryana and produced before the Court. The relief claimed by the petitioner for re-fixation of her seniority was allowed. In the year 2001, State Government appears to have issued instructions based on the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh Janjua versus State of Punjab-II for fixing the seniority of employees. On 4.9.2001 Director General of Police, Haryana issued a letter fixing the provisional seniority list of the rank of Assistants. The petitioner claims that same was never conveyed to her. In the provisional seniority list also the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 39, which was corrected on the basis of her promotion as Assistant. She accordingly had no grievance against the same and did not file any objection. Subsequently, the Government of India has amended the Constitution on 4.1.2002 providing Article 16 (4-A). Subsequently, the Government has issued instructions on 16.3.2006 providing that the employees will be entitled to accelerate seniority as a consequence of promotion under the reservation policy. The employees have as such been given accelerated promotion. In the provisional seniority list published, the name of the petitioner was shown as serial No. 39. In the seniority list published in 3.10.2006 name of the petitioner has now been shown at serial No. 154. This action is stated to be arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of rule of natural justice besides being contrary to the provisions of Constitutiion. The counsel would also plead that this action of the respondents/State Civil Writ Petition No. 17781 of 2006 3 will be in violation of the undertaking given before this Court when order dated 16.10.1988 was passed. The petitioner has accordingly filed present writ petition to impugn the action of the respondent in changing her seniority. In the reply filed, the respondents-State had justified the action in changing the seniority of the petitioner. This apparently has been done on the basis of law laid down in Ajit Singh Janjua's case. Even if the seniority of the petitioner was required to be changed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, still the principle of natural justice was required to be followed as some order adverse to the interest of the petitioner was going to be made or has been made. Apparently, the seniority of the petitioner has been changed in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There may be justification in the action taken by the respondents but still the petitioner was required to be afforded opportunity of hearing before passing this order adverse to her interest to the seniority. Since the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing before this order changing her seniority was made, the same can not be sustained. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the direction to the respondents to afford an opportunity of hearing of the petitioner disclosing all the reasons for which change of her seniority in the seniority list is needed. The respondents would be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Let the respondents serve show cause notice to the petitioner giving all the reasons within a period of one month from today, specifying the period during which the petitioner would be Civil Writ Petition No. 17781 of 2006 4 required to file his response and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The consequential relief shall also be given to the petitioner, if any due. July 30, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE