CWP No.6386 of 1986 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.6386 of 1986 Date of Decision: 24.04.2009 Hari Singh (deceased) through his LRs ...Petitioner V E R S U S Director of Industries, Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. 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? AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) Hari Singh petitioner was a Mechanic in the Industrial Department controlled by the Director of Industries, Haryana, the respondent. He was appointed as Motor Mechanic in 1965 and in 1977 he was confirmed. As per instructions then prevalent, the post of Drilling Assistant was promotional post to which a Motor Mechanic with two years experience was eligible. The other source was from Rigman for promotion to the post of Drilling Assistant with three years experience. On 11.3.1983 Hari Singh, petitioner as well as Janki Dass who was a Rigman, were promoted as Drilling Assistants. Subsequently, vide order Annexure P-3, Hari Singh, petitioner was reverted to the post of Mechanic. This order was CWP No.6386 of 1986 -2- challenged in this writ petition. In the written statement filed by the State, it is stated that since petitioner's promotion was provisional, he was reverted as per instructions received from the State Government vide order passed by the Director. Now it is stated that service rules were enacted in 1998, which were applicable for promotion to the post of Drilling Assistant and the post of Motor Mechanic stands abolished. The question for consideration is whether as per the Statute/Rules of the Government or the instructions which were prevalent on the date of promotion i.e. 11.3.1983, the same was in order. In para 5 of the writ petition, it is specifically stated that as per policy decision, the post of Drilling Assistant was to be filled up from two sources i.e. Mechanic with two years experience and Rigman with three years experience were eligible for promotion on the basis of proposed rules. In the written statement in respective paras, this stand is admitted. In para 5 of the written statement, it is specifically stated that as per decision taken, two posts of Drilling Assistant were to be filled, one by promoting a Rigman and the other by promoting one Mechanic. The relevant experience required for promotion is admitted in para 7 of the written statement. Thus, it indicates that when promotion of the petitioner was made, it was in accordance with the policy decision of the State Government. Subsequently, if policy decision was reverted, previous promotions made could not be taken back. Annexure P-3, the order of reversion, does not indicate any ground for reverting the petitioner. It is only in the written statement that it was stated that as per instructions of the State Government, order of reversion was passed. Assuming such instructions were subsequently issued or that the CWP No.6386 of 1986 -3- Rules actually were finalised in 1998, the same would not be applicable retrospectively on the relevant date of making promotions i.e. 11.3.1983. The order of reversion in the set of present circumstances amounts to punishment and cannot be sustained in law. Coming to the relief to be granted to the petitioner it is directed that the reversion order Annexure P-3 dated 20.10.1986 is set aside and the petitioner would be considered to be a Drilling Assistant w.e.f. 11.3.1983. He will be entitled to all consequential benefits except payment of actual arrears for the period during which he did not work as Drilling Assistant. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the above terms. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 24 , 2009 JUDGE ashish