IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.6714 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 29, 2011. Adarsh Kumar Sharma .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Animesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. Mr.R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr.S.S.Joshi and Mr.R.D.Bawa, Advocates, for respondent No.3. Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 to 6. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The controversy in the present case pertains to the inter-se seniority in the cadre of the Sub Divisional Engineers of the Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Government of Punjab. The petitioner's main grievance is that he was the only AMIE qualified Draftsman in the 'drawing cadre' who ought to have been allocated the roster point No.392 instead of 440 as assigned to him vide the impugned seniority list. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has retired from service and so is the case of the CWP No.6714 of 2009 [2] private respondents. The re-determination of the seniority, however, might entitle the petitioner to claim further promotion and the resultant re-fixation of his pay and the retiral dues. Similarly, such a re-determination may lead to some adverse effect on the private respondents also. It further transpires that the petitioner's precise claim is based upon a distinction sought to be drawn amongst the members of the drawing cadre, namely, the AMIE draftsmen viz-a-viz the Sectional Officers having AMIE qualifications. The petitioner strengthens his plea on the basis of Rule 6 (1) (4) of the Punjab Services of Engineers Class-II, P.W.D. (Punjab Health Branch), Rules, 1967. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I find that for an effective resolution of the controversy, several factual issues are required to be gone into and determined for which the departmental authorities are better equipped as they are the custodian of the records to be verified/ascertained. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Water Supply and Sanitation, to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and/or other retirees who are likely to be affected and if so required, to take their written submissions and decide the controversy by passing a speaking order as early as possible but not later than four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. It is further directed that in the event of acceptance of the petitioner's claim, the retiral benefits already granted to the private respondents and/or any other person shall not be adversely effected. Similarly, the petitioner's CWP No.6714 of 2009 [3] claim can be accepted notionally only for the purpose of financial benefits. Dasti. July 29, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE