RA No. 121 of 2007 in CWP 11394 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA No. 121 of 2007 in CWP No. 11394 of 2005 Date of decision: 12.2.2008 Er. K.K. Vashisht ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.GAREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. RD Bawa, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. N.S. Virk, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. K.S.GAREWAL, J. When we decided the petitioner's case on April 17, 2007, we had allowed the petition and granted the petitioner interest 9% per annum on the delayed payments of gratuity and leave encashment. Interest was to commence from the date of retirement till the date of respective payments. Through this review application, the petitioner has sought review of the order dated April 17, 2007 on the ground that he had also claimed relief regarding fixation of the date of promotion to relate back to promotion as Superintending Engineer either from May 11, 1984 or RA No. 121 of 2007 in CWP 11394 of 2005 2 September 27, 1985. The petitioner had indeed been promoted to the post of Superintendent Engineer on May 25,1989 (June 1, 1989). It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fact that the petitioner's junior B.S. Bajwa was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer on September 29, 1985 had been noticed in the judgment but relief on this basis was not granted, probably due to over- sight. In the written statement filed to the writ petition, the respondents accepted that inter-se seniority of the civil officers (like the petitioner) and ex-army officers (like B.S. Bajwa) was fixed and circulated vide order dated April 2, 1999 and was subsequently re-cast vide order dated July 18, 2000. The order dated July 18, 2000 had been annexed as Annexure P/4 to the writ petition and accepted by the respondent-department. In this list, K.K. Vashisht-petitioner was shown at 18 whereas B.S. Bajwa was shown at 28. The respondents had at no stage treated the petitioner to be junior to B.S. Bajwa but since B.S. Bajwa had been promoted with effect from September 27, 1985, the petitioner was also entitled to the deemed date of promotion as September 27, 1985. It may be clarified that ultimately B.S. Bajwa had been given antedated promotion with effect from May 11, 1984. The petitioner is claiming promotion from either of the two dates. Since September 27, 1985 was the date on which B.S. Bajwa was actually promoted and worked as Superintending Engineer, the petitioner is also entitled to promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer from September 27, 1985. There is obviously an error apparent on the face of the record and injustice to the petitioner deserves to be undone. Consequently, this review application is allowed and it is RA No. 121 of 2007 in CWP 11394 of 2005 3 clarified that the petitioner shall, in addition to the relief already granted by us on April 17, 2007, be entitled to promotion as Superintending Engineer with effect September 27, 1985, the date on which the person junior to him was promoted, and to all consequential reliefs that shall flow from his promotion w.e.f. September 27, 1985. This review application is allowed in the above terms. (K.S. GAREWAL) JUDGE February 12, 2008 (ARVIND KUMAR) prem JUDGE