CWP No.1071 of 2010 (O&M).doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CM No.2349 of 2010 in/and CWP No.1071 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Joga Singh and others . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and another . . . . . Respondents **** 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? **** Present: Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. Ms. Charu Tuli, Ld. Sr. DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file any counter-reply at this stage. (2). The petitioners are working as Deputy Superintendent (Jails) in the Prisons Department, Government of Punjab. They seek quashing of the CWP No.1071 of 2010 (O&M).doc - 2 – order dated 14.10.2009 (Annexure P11), whereby, their representations against fixation of seniority has been rejected. (3). One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners is that while disposing of the representations, the competent authority has overlooked the subsequent decision of the Personnel Department taken in the year 2008, based upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. According to the petitioners, the competent authority has rather relied upon a decision of the Personnel Department taken in the year 2004 which, in a way, was non-existent as thereafter a fresh decision has been taken by the Department in the year 2008. (4). The petitioners also claim parity with the promotee Deputy Superintendent (Jails). (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and without expressing any views on the contentions raised by them, I am of the considered view that the issues raised by the CWP No.1071 of 2010 (O&M).doc - 3 – petitioners require re-consideration by the respondents. (6). Consequently, the impugned order dated 14.10.2009 (Annexure P11) is hereby set aside, with a direction to the respondent No.2 to take a fresh decision on the representations made by the petitioners in the light of the subsequent decision of the Personnel Department taken in the year 2008 as is being relied upon by the them. Respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, if so required, before taking the final decision. It would be appreciated if the final decision is taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (7). Ordered accordingly. (8). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 22.02.2010 vishal shonkar