IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 9629 of 2008 Decided on: 3.6.2011 Smt. Prem Kala …Petitioners Versus State of HP and others …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the petitioner : None For the respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate . General, Advocate for respondents. . . . Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : Petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant in the pay-scale of ` 5800-9200 vide Office order Annexure A-4, 6.8.2003. Consequently, she was directed to report further duties to the Executive Engineer as per Annexure A-5 on 8.8.2003. However, order dated 6.8.2003, whereby the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant was withdrawn vide Annexure A-7 dated 23.8.2003. 2 The learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has granted status quo in favour of the petitioner on 5.9.2003. Admittedly, no notice has been issued to the petitioner before issuance of Annexure A-7 dated 23.8.2003. Since, the petitioner was promoted on the basis of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee, at least a notice was 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No -2- required to be issued to her before reverting her vide Annexure A-7, dated 23.8.2003. 3. Consequently, Annexure A-7, dated 23.8.2003 is quashed and set aside. In normal circumstances, the respondents were required to be given an opportunity to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, however, since the petitioner has now superannuated, the matter is directed to be closed. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge June 3, 2011 (K. Attri)