Regular Second Appeal No.2778 of 1986 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 25, 2010 Jaswant Singh & others ...Appellants VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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: None for the appellants. Ms.Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Through this order, five Regular Second Appeal Nos.2778 of 1986 (Jaswant Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab), 2804 of 1986 (Balkar Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab), 2805 of 1986 (Harpal Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab), 1973 of 1987 (Dalip Singh Vs. The State of Punjab & another) and 2474 of 1987 (Buta Singh Vs. Punjab State & another) are being disposed of together as common question of law and facts arise in these cases. The facts are being Regular Second Appeal No.2778 of 1986 (O&M) : 2 : taken from Regular Second Appeal No.2778 of 1986. The appellants were promoted as Inspectors, Food & Supplies Department on different dates during the period June, 1981 and November, 1981. Subsequently, however, they were reverted to the post of Sub Inspector on 31.8.1984 by Director Food & Supplies Department, Punjab. The appellants accordingly challenged their reversion by filing a suit on 12.9.1984. The suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 21.9.1985. The appellants had challenged the order of their reversion on the ground that the same was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and, thus, would be inoperative. The appellants were reverted on the ground that the seniority list of Sub Inspectors was revised in view of the judgment passed by this court, though the appellants were not party in the said case. It is, thus, pleaded that the seniority list could not be revised without issuing notice to them. The defendants-State had not filed any written statement in response to the notice and their defence was struck of. After recording ex-parte evidence, the suit was dismissed on the ground that the revised seniority of Sub Inspectors was prepared to give effect to the judgment passed by this court and, thus, the order could not be termed as illegal in any manner. Against this, the appellants filed an appeal, which was dismissed. They had then filed the present Regular Second Appeal. State counsel would point out that the judgment passed by this court, on the basis of which the seniority list of Sub Inspectors, was revised, was subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Taking note of these facts, the first Appellate Court Regular Second Appeal No.2778 of 1986 (O&M) : 3 : has rightly come to the conclusion that the revised seniority list was prepared to implement the judgment passed by this court. The Court accordingly viewed that seniors had to be promoted as Inspectors and as a consequence thereof, juniors Sub Inspectors were required to be reverted. This reversion was not by way of a punishment, but as a consequence of the judgment passed by this court. No malafides have been alleged. No challenge was made by the appellants to the judgment passed by this court. The appellants, thus, cannot be heard to say that their seniority could not have been changed as they were not party before this court. The appellants did not take any action once they learnt about change in the seniority list as per direction issued by this court. No different result would have followed even if the appellants were to be issued notice as no different decision was possible once the case was finalised upto Supreme Court. In view of the above factual and legal position, the question of law regarding violation of principle of natural justice or ground of opportunity of hearing in this case would not really arise. The order passed was not punitive in nature as it was only passed on the basis of judgment passed by this court and the consequences has followed. The Regular Second Appeals are accordingly dismissed. March 25, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE