LPA No. 954 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 954 of 2010 Date of decision : 23.09.2010 Manjit Singh and others ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present : Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate with Mr. P.C. Goyal, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 7. RANJAN GOGOI J. (ORAL) Civil Misc. No. 2813 of 2010 Heard. Allowed as prayed for. Civil Misc. No. 2814 of 2010 Delay of 132 days in filling the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application. C.M. stands disposed of. LPA No. 954 of 2010 Heard. LPA No. 954 of 2010 2 In view of the elaborate arguments that have taken place, final orders in the appeal are being passed at the motion/admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. By an order dated 14.10.2009, the inter se seniority of Deputy Superintendent of Jails Grade-II had been determined and the tentative seniority list was finalized by rejection of representations filed by respondents No. 3 to 7 in the appeal. Aggrieved, the said respondents preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 1071 of 2010. The same was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 22.02.2010 at the admission stage. In the said writ petition, the present appellants who were beneficiaries of order dated 14.10.2009 were not made parties; yet the learned Single Judge set-aside the order dated 14.10.2009 with the direction to reconsider the representation of respondents No. 3 to 7. On reconsideration, an order dated 27.07.2010 (Annexure P-1) has been passed by Director General of Police, Prisons, Punjab accepting the claims of respondents No. 3 to 7. Aggrieved, this LPA has been filed. It has been contended before us by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge had decided the writ petition and had set-aside the order dated 14.10.2009 without hearing the appellants who were not arrayed as parties in the writ petition. It has been pointed out that the interference made with the order dated 14.10.2009 by the learned Single Judge has caused enormous prejudice to the appellants. Learned counsel has also pointed out that learned Single Judge had directed reconsideration of the representations of respondents No. 3 to 7 after hearing them and the present appellants having not been heard in the process of such LPA No. 954 of 2010 3 reconsideration, the consequential order dated 27.07.2010 has been passed without affording them any opportunity. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab and Mr. J.S. Gill with Mr. P.C. Goyal, Advocates representing respondents No. 3 to 7, on the contrary, have urged that no final decision has been taken by the Director General of Police by the order dated 27.07.2010 and before any fresh determination of seniority is made, the appellants will be put to notice. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no basis to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal and pass any order contrary to what has been ordered by learned Single Judge. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. There can be no manner of doubt that the order dated 14.10.2009 challenged in Civil Writ Petition No. 1071 of 2010, which has been set-aside by learned Single Judge by the order under challenge in this appeal, conferred certain benefits to the appellants and the said order has been interfered by the learned Single Judge without hearing the appellants. No law needs to be recited to take the view that above course of action is not permissible. Benefits conferred by a public order cannot be taken away without affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected party. In view of above conclusion which has to be reached in the facts of the present case there can be no doubt that the conclusion reached in the order dated 22.02.2010 passed by learned Single Judge needs to be interfered. We, therefore, order accordingly. The said order is, therefore, set-aside LPA No. 954 of 2010 4 Insofar as the consequential order dated 27.07.2010 is concerned, despite the arguments and contrary arguments that have been advanced with regard to tenability of the said order, we are of the view that said order furnishes a fresh cause of action to the aggrieved parties, if any. The only fetter in this regard is the order dated 22.02.2010 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 1071 of 2010 which having been set-aside by the present order, we are of the view that any aggrieved party including the appellants should be left with the liberty to challenge the order dated 27.07.2010 in an appropriate manner before the appropriate Forum. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants would challenge the order dated 27.07.2010 within a period of two weeks and, therefore, the State may be asked not to give effect to order dated 27.07.2010. On due consideration, we find the submission advanced reasonable. We, therefore, order accordingly and dispose of the appeal by observing that the present order may not be understood to be an expression of any opinion with regard to merits of order dated 27.07.2010. (RANJAN GOGOI) JUDGE September 23, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE