Civil Writ Petition No.2785 of 1989 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: September 04, 2009 Ram Kishan .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Harish Nain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petition Nos.2785 of 1989 (Ram Kishan Vs. The State of Haryana & others), and 3900 of 1992 (Rameshwar Dayal & others Vs. The State of Haryana & others). Civil Writ Petition No.2785 of 1989 The petitioner in this case has impugned the order dated 22.2.1989, Annexure P-4, whereby his promotion to the post of Diesel Engine Operator has been cancelled. The petitioner was appointed as T.Mate on work charge basis on 24.10.1977. Civil Writ Petition No.2785 of 1989 : 2 : Subsequently, he filed a representation for promotion to the post of Diesel Engine Operator on the ground that his juniors had been so promoted to the said rank. On the basis of representation, Superintending Engineer vide his letter dated 15.11.1985 forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Chief Engineer on the basis of a communication addressed by the Executive Engineer. The Chief Engineer accordingly approved the promotion of the petitioner as Diesel Engine Operator in the grade of 800-1150 with immediate effect on 14.8.1987. While the petitioner was working efficiently as Diesel Engine Operator, he was served order dated 22.2.1989 cancelling his promotion to the post of Diesel Engine Operator. He had accordingly filed this writ petition to impugn the said order. While issuing notice of motion in CWP No.2785 of 1989, operation of impugned order, Annexure P-4, was stayed. The writ petition was admitted. No reply has been filed, but in view of the stay order the petitioner has continued to work as Diesel Engine Operator. Obviously the position as on date must have gone a sea change so far as case of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Diesel Engine Operator is concerned. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner continues to work as Diesel Engine Operator in view of the interim order passed by this court. He would also point out that after being validly promoted, no reasons were disclosed to the petitioner for which this order was cancelled. The petitioner was not served any show cause notice before directing cancellation of this promotion, which, he has impugned through the present writ petition. No reply is filed. This position, thus, is not disputed. The impugned order, thus, cannot be sustained on this short ground Civil Writ Petition No.2785 of 1989 : 3 : alone that the same has been passed in complete violation of principle of natural justice. Order, Annexure P-4, is thus quashed. However, liberty is left with the respondents to consider if the promotion order issued in respect of the petitioner is required to be cancelled. In case it is so, the respondents would serve a show cause notice on the petitioner on all the grounds for which his promotion is or was required to be cancelled. After considering the reply received from the petitioner, the respondents would be at liberty to pass any appropriate order in accordance with law. If it is decided to cancel the promotion order of the petitioner even now, then the same order shall not be implemented for a period of one month to enable the petitioner to avail of his legal rights and remedies. Civil Writ Petition No.3900 of 1992 In this Writ petition, petitioner Nos.1 to 4 were posted as T-Mates at Canal Mech, Division No.1 Narnaul and petitioner Nos.5 and 6 were posted as T-Mates Mechanical Division No.3 at Narnaul. Claiming that the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.6 to 11 were initially appointed as T-Mates and were subsequently regularised as such from various dates, as per the following dates:- Sr.No. Name Date of Date of S/Shri. Appointment regularisation 1.Rameshwar Dayal 1-2-77 28-11-83 2.Balbir Singh 1-2-77 -do- 3.Mohar Singh 1-1-77 -do- 4.Rishi Ram 1-5-77 -do- 5.Kalu Ram 1-6-76 -do- 6.Mohinder Singh 1-6-77 -do- 6-A Ram Krishan 24-10-77 -do- 7.Budh Ram 15-11-77 -do- 8. Zile Singh 1-11-77 -do- 9. Parbhati 1-11-77 -do- 10.Ghanshyam 1-1-78 -do- 11.Gugan 1-1-78 25-3-87 Civil Writ Petition No.2785 of 1989 : 4 : Copy of the seniority list showing their dates of initial appointment and dates on which they were regularised is also annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. Respondent No.6, however, was promoted as Diesel Engine Operator w.e.f. 16.11.1987, which is the next promotional post. Claiming that respondent Nos.6 to 11 were appointed as T-Mates much after the appointment of the petitioners and were promoted as Diesel Engine Operator, the petitioners have not only challenged their promotion but have prayed for considering their names for promotion for the said post. Seeing no action by the respondents, petitioner Nos.1 to 5 filed a civil suit, which was, however, subsequently withdrawn on 3.1.1992 on the ground that it was not an efficacious remedy. They accordingly filed this writ petition seeking direction for their promotion from the date their juniors-respondent Nos.6 to 11 were promoted to the post of Diesel Engine Operator. In response to notice issued, reply has been filed not only by the official respondents but also by the private respondents. It is disclosed that petitioner Nos.1 to 5 and respondent No.6 were initially deployed as T-Mates purely on work charge capacity and were subsequently so regularised w.e.f. 28.11.1983. As per the reply, respondent Nos.7 and 11 were initially deployed as Diesel Engine Operators purely on work charge basis and were regularised w.e.f. 28.11.1983 Diesel Engine Operator. Respondent Nos.8, 9 and 10 were initially appointed as T-Mates on work charge basis and subsequently were deployed as Diesel Engine Operators also on work charge basis as per the requirements and they were Civil Writ Petition No.2785 of 1989 : 5 : accordingly regularised w.e.f. 28.11.1983. Thus, it is stated that respondent Nos.7 and 11 always worked as Diesel Engine Operators throughout their service on work charge basis and accordingly were so regularised. Respondent No.6, who was initially appointed as T-Mate, also was regularised w.e.f. 28.11.1983 as T- Mate. While not disputing the dates of employment, dates of regularisation as stated in the written statement are contested. It is on this basis stated that the petitioners cannot be considered senior to the respondents and their claim for promotion to the post of Diesel Engine Operator has been contested. Though the respondents have contested the claim of the petitioners made in this writ petition for their promotion, but by now the petitioners may have also become eligible for promotion to the post of Diesel Engine Operator. This perhaps may explain the reasons for which no one has come to represent at the time of hearing of this writ petition. Even otherwise, the petitioners are entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Diesel Engine Operator. The respondents, therefore, are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Diesel Engine Operator, if not already promoted, from the date any one of their junior was so promoted. This is as per their right for consideration. Only right of consideration is a constitutional guaranteed right and not right of promotion. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in the light of above mentioned directions. There shall be no order as to costs. September 04, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE