IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19398 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 20, 2010 Dilbag Singh & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Home Secretary to Government, Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 29.4.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.5 i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar City. 2. Nine persons who were appointed as Constables in Punjab Police have approached this Court with the plea that they were promoted as CWP No.19398 of 2008 [2] Head Constables on different dates on account of exemplary work. Subsequently, however, they were reverted to the posts of Constables on 1.7.1999 whereupon they had to file Civil Writ Petition No.9834 of 1999 challenging order dated 1.7.1999. The matter came up for hearing before this Court and the same was disposed of vide same order (dated 11.1.2000) as passed in Civil Writ Petition No.1815 of 1999. Copy of order dated 11.1.2000 has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. 3. It seems that the respondents were not satisfied with the order passed by this Court and therefore, Special Leave Petition No.12979 of 2000 came to be filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. When the matter was heard on 6.12.2000, the following order is stated to have been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:- “After having heard learned counsel for the parties for some time, it was suggested that it would be appropriate for the Government to explain the feasibility of regularizing its action in having promoted out of turn some of the petitioner before us for their exemplary action in showing brave and courageous acts on anti-terrorist front.” 4. It is brought out that the respondent-State filed an affidavit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly stating that one time relaxation was being given to the petitioners. Extract from the affidavit has been CWP No.19398 of 2008 [3] reproduced in order dated 8.11.2001 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as is evident from Annexure P-3. The order reads as under:- “SLP No.12979/2000 An affidavit has been filed in the Court, which is taken on record, to the following effect: “That in compliance with order dated 6.12.2000, the claim of the petitioners was considered by the State Government vide letter dated 2.11.2001 the Home Department has conveyed the decision of the Government to grant one time relaxation for regularization of the adhoc promotions of the ten petitioner in Special Leave Petition (C) No.12979, of 2000. A copy of the said letter annexed as Annexure R-I. Formal orders to implement the said decision regarding the petitioners are being issued by the respondents.” In view of this affidavit, the relief sought for by the petitioners will be satisfied and therefore, no further orders are necessary. This special leave petition shall stand disposed of.” 5. As a consequence of the stand taken by the respondent-State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the orders passed, required relief was given to the petitioners vide order dated 23.1.2002 (Annexure P-4). Consequently, adhoc promotions instead of ORP postings were given to the petitioners. 6. Vide impugned order dated 29.4.2008 (Annexure P-5), however, the benefits given as a consequence of order, Annexure P-3 (order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as extracted above) and Annexure P-4, have been taken away. CWP No.19398 of 2008 [4] Consequently, the respondent-State has withdrawn the benefit of adhoc promotion to the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the relief was given by the respondent-State as a consequence of the stand of the respondents before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in giving one time relaxation to the petitioners. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in view of the affidavit/stand of the respondents, disposed of the Special Leave Petition. 8. Annexure P-4 enjoined certain civil rights with the petitioners which however have been taken away by Annexure P-5 without even giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent- State has not been able to justify passing of order, Annexure P-5, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 10. I, having considered the issue, am of the considered opinion that benefit of one time relaxation in regularisation of adhoc promotions having been given to the petitioners on account of the stand of the respondents taken before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and order Annexure P-4, could not have been taken away by subsequent order after about six years, without CWP No.19398 of 2008 [5] giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 11. Order dated 29.4.2008, Annexure P-5, accordingly is unreasonable, arbitrary, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, and therefore, in violation of principles of natural justice, and is hereby quashed. 12. The petition is allowed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 20, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?