CWP No.8592 of 1996 : 1: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 19.05.2009 Sukhdev Singh Randhawa ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Karminder Singh,Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr.Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab,for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Vide order dated 14.06.1986, Annexure P-2, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Public Relations Officer in the grade of Rs.620- 1200/-. The petitioner was, however, reverted vide order dated 15.06.1987, Annexure P-3. The petitioner has challenged the order of reversion in CWP No.3727 of 1987 in which reversion order was stayed on 29.06.1987. The writ petition, however, came to be disposed of vide order dated 11.01.1988 in view of the withdrawal of the reversion order. The petitioner, thereafter, continued to work on the promotional post. The respondents passed the impugned order dated 26.04.1996, Annexure P-8, whereby the order of promotion dated 14.06.1986 promoting the petitioner as Assistant Public Relations Officer, has been withdrawn. It is stated that this order has been withdrawn pursuant to the decision of the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Sangrur and Sub Judge Ist Class, Ferozepur and also the order passed in CWP No.490 of 1993 decided on 30.05.1995. The same is the stand in CWP No.8592 of 1996 : 2: the reply filed. Copies of the orders passed in Civil Writ Petition No.490 of 1993, Senior Sub Judge, Sangrur and Sub Judge Ist Class, Ferozepur are on record. A civil suit was filed by one Narinder Singh challenging the promotion of the petitioners as Assistant Public Relations Officer with a further plea to promote the plaintiff in the suit as Assistant Public Relations Officer with effect from the date persons junior to him were promoted. Admittedly, present petitioner was defendant No.6 in the said suit. The said suit was decreed by the Senior Sub Judge, Sangrur, vide its judgment and decree dated 24.04.1990 with the following observations:- “ 18. As a result of my findings on the above issues, I pass decree for declaration that plaintiff as of right should have been considered for promotion as Assistant Public Relations Officer in the scale of 620-1200 with effect from 14.6.1986 when his juniors i.e. defendant No.3,5, and 6 were promoted as Asstt. Public Relations Officer vide impugned order dated 14.6.86 copy of which is ex. P.18 in favour of plaintiff and against all defendants with costs of the suit. D/sheet be made and file be consigned.” From the aforesaid judgment and decree, it appears that the promotion of the petitioner herein (defendant No.6 in the suit aforesaid), was not set aside. The only direction issued by the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Sangrur, was to promote the plaintiff in the suit as Assistant Public CWP No.8592 of 1996 : 3: Relations Officer with effect from the date the defendants in the suit were promoted as such. Thus, the ground in the impugned order that the promotion of the petitioner is being withdrawn on the basis of the order passed in the aforesaid civil suit, is totally unwarranted. Similarly, the other ground of passing the impugned order is the direction issued in CWP No.490 of 1993. Some of the employees including Narinder Singh, who was a plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, filed the aforesaid writ petition, challenging the order dated December 17, 1992, with a further prayer for their own promotion to the post of Assistant Public Relations Officer with effect from 26.02.1990. This writ petition came to be dismissed vide judgment dated May 30, 1995. It is relevant to notice that the promotion order of the petitioner was not under challenge in this petition nor the petitioner herein was a party to the said writ petition. The very basis of the passing of the impugned order is fallacious and is non-existent. The petitioner's reversion in the year 1987 was challenged in this Court and later the order of reversion was withdrawn-meaning thereby that the promotion of the petitioner in the year 1986 was up-held. In view of the above circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed. I order accordingly. As a consequence of the quashment of the reversion order, the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. No costs. 19.05.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO