IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10568 OF 2006 DATE OF DECISION: January 18, 2008 Parties Name Sat Narain and another ..PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, with Ms. Shivani Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana; JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) Order. By filing this writ petition, petitioners have laid challenge to the order dated July 5, 2006 (Annexure P-2), vide which their promotion order was withdrawn. It is apparent from the records that vide order dated May 24, 2006 (Annexure P-1), petitioner No. 1 was promoted as Chargeman Mechanic and petitioner No. 2 was promoted as Mechanic Fitter. Condition No. 4 in the promotion order reads thus: “The above promotion are made against 50% quota of direct recruitment and the promotion orders are made with the conditions that the official will be reverted back to his original post on the appointment of fresh candidate against the 50% quota of direct recruitment by the competent authority.” CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10568 OF 2006 -2- A reading of the provisions, referred to above, clearly indicates that the promotion was only temporary and was in the nature of officiating arrangement. It is further clear that the petitioners had no right to get that promotion. However, the same appears to have been made keeping in view exigencies of the service to man the posts, which otherwise were meant for direct recruitment. Be that as it may, it is correct that while passing order(s) Annexure P-2, no reason has been given as to on what grounds the petitioners' promotion order was being withdrawn. We are of the opinion that on passing of the promotion order (Annexure P-1), a right had accrued to the petitioners and if the same was to be withdrawn, visiting them with civil consequences, then the minimum requirements of principles of natural justice, like opportunity of hearing, disclosing the reasons etc..were required to be met. As per settled law, even administrative authorities are supposed to observe principles of natural justice while passing the administrative orders affecting the rights of employees, howsoever limited those rights may be. Nothing of the sort is reflected in Annexure P-2. In view of the discussion, made above, we are of the opinion that , in passing the order under challenge, there is clear violation of the principles of natural justice. On account of that, we set aside order Annexure P-2 and grant liberty to respondent No. 3 to pass order afresh, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. As the petitioners were holding only temporary posts without any right what-so-ever and furthermore, it was provided in their promotion order that they could be reverted on joining the direct recruits, we are of the opinion that they are not entitled to get any financial benefit for the period after passing of order CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10568 OF 2006 -3- Annexure P.2 . It is further made clear that if ultimately, after hearing the petitioner, authorities concerned decide to retain the petitioners on the promotional posts, they be given continuity of service only, for the intervening period and no financial benefits be given to them keeping in view principle of no work no wages. Needful be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Disposed of. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( Jaswant Singh) January 18, 2008. Judge DKC