- (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner who is an employee of Department of Industries, Punjab has challenged the order dated 17.7.1989, Copy of which is Annexure P-4 to the writ petition, vide which he ws reverted.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Technical Assistant by the Sub-ordinate Services Selection Board vide order dated 5.5.1973 and was promoted as Senior Technical Assistant vide order dated 9.8.1982, copy of which is Annexure P-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner was also allowed to cross efficiency bar as Senior Technical Assistant with effect from 1.5.1983 vide order dated 31.7.1984, whereby the basic pay of the petitioner was raised to Rs. 725/- per month from Rs. 700/-. The reasons of reversion recorded in the impugned order reads : "Consequent upon dismissal of S.L.P. No. 15119 of 1987 State v. Prem Lal, Junior Technical Assistant by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Shri Prem Lal, Junior Technical Assistant is promoted as Senior Technical Assistant in the scale of Rs. 1500-30-1560-40-2000-50-2400-60-2640 and Shri Harbans Lal Tungal Senior Technical Assistant is reverted as Junior Technical Assistant with immediate effect."
(3.) A perusal of the entire paper book indicates that respondent No.3 had filed a civil suit against respondent No. 1 on 7.9.1982 praying therein that order dated 3.6.1981 of the Director of Industries, Punjab, communicated to the plaintiff vide No. E/3/82/22/10572-A by virtue of which the plaintiff was assigned Rs. 160-400 w.e.f. 12.4.74 instead of 4.6.69 is illegal, wrong, against the principles of natural justice, rules, discriminatory. The plaintiff is entitled to the grade of Rs. 160-400 of Junior Technical Assistant w.e.f. 4.6.1969. Against the judgment of trial Court, the respondent State had file, appeal, R.S.A. and S.L.P. which were all dismissed. The petitioner was nowhere a party in the suit filed by respondent No. 3. The plaintiff in the suit had no where challenged the promotion of the petitioner at any stage. The petitioner continued to occupy the post of Senior Technical Assistant for a pretty long time and he was even allowed to cross the efficiency bar. It is not the case of the respondent that before passing of the reversion order, the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing. I am of the view that before issuance of an order which goes against the interest of an employee, he is entitled to an opportunity of hearing which admittedly in this case was not granted.;