IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13520 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 01, 2009 Jaswant Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. P.K. Dwivedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 9.10.2002 (Annexure P-1) whereby six annual increments of the petitioner have been stopped with cumulative effect. Challenge is also to Order dated 12.1.2009 (Annexure P-2) i.e. decision rendered by the Appellate Forum on the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner. At the very out set, learned CWP No.13520 of 2009 [2] counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready and willing to forego the benefits for the interregnum period. It has been made clear that the petitioner would not claim any benefit if the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner is allowed. All that has been prayed is that the appeal has been dismissed being time barred. The petitioner be heard in the appeal by the Appellate Forum i.e. respondent No.1. Notice of motion on the limited issue of challenge to Annexure P-2 dated 12.1.2009 on the ground of dismissal of the appeal, the same being time barred. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, on the asking of the Court accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that perusal of Order dated 12.1.2009 (Annexure P-2), in particular, Para 4 and 5, makes it evident that the petitioner has not been serious in pursuing the departmental remedies. The petitioner was given a personal hearing, however, the petitioner conveyed by a written request that he could not come present. CWP No.13520 of 2009 [3] The order notices that absence of the petitioner indicates that he is not serious in pursuing the remedy of departmental appeal. Be that as it may, considering the undertaking having been given by the petitioner that he shall not claim any benefit for the interregnum period, the petitioner can be heard by the Appellate Forum (respondent No.1). The petitioner, however, would give complete cooperation and would appear and conclude his contentions on the same day. Having considered the issue and concession given on behalf of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is required to be heard by the Appellate Forum. Accordingly, Order dated 12.1.2009 (Annexure P-2) is hereby quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to hear the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner would be given only one opportunity of hearing. In case, the petitioner does not appear and conclude his contentions on the said date, no further hearing would be given to the petitioner and respondent No.1 would be at liberty to pass orders considering the grounds of appeal. CWP No.13520 of 2009 [4] The petition is allowed in the limited terms. (AJAI LAMBA) September 01, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?