CWP No.15064 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.15064 of 2008 Date of Decision: 15.09.2010 **** Ashwani Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl. AG Punjab Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2&3 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to implement the decision dated 17.10.2003 (Annexure P4) qua him also passed by this Court in CWP No.14206 of 2001 (Pushpinder Singh & others v. State of Punjab & Others). This Court had, vide the above- mentioned decision, quashed the reversion order of similarly-placed persons. (2). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit. CWP No.15064 of 2008.doc - 2 – (3). The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was promoted as Electrician on 22.12.2001 (Annexure P1). He was, however, reverted vide order dated 28.08.2002 (Annexure P3). After the decision of this Court in Pushpinder Singh’s case (supra), the reversion order qua the petitioner was also withdrawn on 15.04.2005 and he was restored to the promotional rank of Electrician. The petitioner continued to serve as such till he resigned from service on 12.10.2006. The petitioner was, however, not granted the benefit of the decision in Pushpinder Singh’s case (supra) as the arrears of difference in pay from 28.08.2002 till he was again promoted as Electrician on 15.04.2005, have not released in his favour. (4). Learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 fairly states that if the petitioner is restored to the grade of Electrician w.e.f. 28.08.2002 i.e. the date of reversion he is entitled to the benefit of Rs.143/- per month as a difference in his pay. (5). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. (6). In my considered view, once the action of respondent-Sugar Mill in reverting the employees CWP No.15064 of 2008.doc - 3 – like the petitioner has been held to be illegal, the reversion order passed against the petitioner on 28.08.2002 too was illegal and liable to be set aside. (7). Ordered accordingly. (8). Consequently, the petitioner shall be paid the difference of his pay @ 143/- per month w.e.f. the date of reversion i.e. 28.08.2002 till he was again promoted as Electrician on 15.04.2005. (9). The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (10). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 15.09.2010 vishal shonkar