IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20446 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 23, 2010 Harchand Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. None for respondent Nos.4 and 5. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 10.11.2006 (Annexure P-5). Challenge is also to seniority list dated 4.11.2008 (Annexure P-10). 2. Gist of the claim of the petitioner is that petitioner was promoted from the post of Patwari to Kanungo on 25.6.1991. The claim is on CWP No.20446 of 2009 [2] the basis of seniority of the petitioner as Kanungo to the post of District Kanungo. 3. It has been contended that tentative seniority list of Kanungos of district SAS Nagar (Mohali) was circulated vide Annexure P-8. The petitioner filed objections thereto vide Annexure P-9 dated 1.10.2007. Without taking a decision on the objections and granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, seniority list has been finalised. The petitioner filed an appeal however no decision thereon has been taken. Person junior to the petitioner viz. respondent No.4, has been promoted to the post of district Kanungo. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent- State, on instructions from Jaspreet Singh, Reader to Deputy Commissioner, SAS Nagar (Mohali), states that promotion of the petitioner has been made. Seniority of the petitioner has been fixed above the private respondent (No.4) at Serial No.1. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the petitioner has retired, therefore, consequential benefits are required to be given to the petitioner. 6. Private respondent (No.4) was promoted who, as per the admitted case of the CWP No.20446 of 2009 [3] respondents at that juncture, was junior to the petitioner. Petitioner would be entitled to consequential benefits as per the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation in regard to consequential benefits. Representation of the petitioner would be considered by the respondents within a period of three months of its making. A speaking and reasoned order would be passed thereupon. (AJAI LAMBA) July 23, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?