C.W.P No. 8149 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 8149 of 2007 Date of decision : May 01, 2009 Sunil Dutt and another, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 The petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.5.2007 (Annexure P-11) vide which they have been reverted from the post of Hindi Teacher to that of JBT Teacher after a period of 7 to 11 years. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to deny that an identical matter bearing CWP No.9498 of 2004, Ravinder Kumar and others vs State of Haryana and others, was decided on 26.9.2005 by a Division Bench of this Court by holding as under :- “ Both the parties have relied upon the Supreme C.W.P No. 8149 of 2007 ::2:: Court judgment reported as State of Haryana and others vs Indira Kumari, 2003 (3) RSJ 322. The petitioners had been promoted in the years 2001 to 2002, the last petitioner being promoted in January 2003. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid judgment, which had been rendered on 13.8.2003 had to be made applicable prospectively from the date of Supreme Court judgment whereas the case of the respondents is that it was to operate with retrospective effect from 19.3.1998 i.e from the date when the High Court had delivered its judgment. It is conceded before us that if the judgment is made applicable with effect from 19.3.1998, the petitioners would fail whereas if it is made applicable from 13.8.2003, the petitioners would succeed. In this connection, we have gone through the judgment afore- cited and find that the ultimate decision has been made in paragraph 9. This paragraph is reproduced below :- `9. For all these reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals. They fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. We may, however, make it clear that this decision shall be treated as prospective.....' The last line of the order makes it clear that the decision would be treated as prospective, which would obviously mean from the date of the judgment of the C.W.P No. 8149 of 2007 ::3:: Hon'ble Supreme Court. Had the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court intended to be made applicable from the date of the judgment of High Court i.e 19.3.1998, a clear direction to that effect would have been made. We accordingly allow the writ petition and quash the reversion orders. The petitioners shall have all consequential benefits thereby.” In view of the above binding exposition of law, this writ petition is allowed in the same terms as CWP No.9498 of 2004. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 01, 2009. JUDGE `kk'