IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 12843 of 2001 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 13, 2009 RAM DEV KASHYAP ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 13.8.2001 (Annexure P-3) under which the petitioner has been ordered to be reverted from the post of Sub Divisional Engineer to the post of Junior Engineer. Relevant portion of Annexure P-3 reads as under:- “In compliance with the information vide letter Civil Writ Petition No. 12843 of 2001 2 No.5/A1/91/2980, dated 3/7/2001 from the Chief Engineer PWD (B&R), Sh. Ram Dev Keshyap, Junior Engineer who was given the current duty charge of Sub Divisional Engineer, Rural Works, Sub Divn. no. I Ferozepur in public interest is hereby cancelled with immediate effect on the basis of letter No.66/A1 dated 7/3/2001 from Chief Engineer PWD (B&R) and it is further clarified that any work done by the Sub Divisional Engineer while holding the C.D.C. after the issuance of this Order will be illegal and for this the concerned official and the Executive Engineer of the concerned Division will be personally responsible.” A perusal of the impugned order (Annxure P-3) indicates that the petitioner had been given Current Duty Charge of the post of Sub Divisional Engineer, Rural Works, Sub Division No.1, Ferozepur, in public interest, which was cancelled. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that no cause of action survives as the petitioner expired on 22.7.2008. Further, the petitioner being a degree holder, was promoted in his own right as Sub Divisional Engineer vide order dated 25.8.2006. While referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Haryana v. S.M. Sharma and others, 1993 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 252 (paras 9 and 10), learned counsel for the respondent-State has argued that the petitioner was only asked to hold Current Duty Charge. The petitioner, however, all through, had been drawing the scale of a Junior Engineer and had not been promoted at any point in time and, therefore, would have no right to continue on Current Duty Charge. Civil Writ Petition No. 12843 of 2001 3 Considering the fact that the petitioner had not been promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer at any point in time and was holding Current Duty Charge only; the petitioner was promoted on 25.8.2006 as Sub Divisional Engineer and the petitioner having expired on 22.7.2008, no cause of action survives and, therefore, the matter is disposed of as infructuous. July 13, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?