LPA No. 1789 of 2026 (O&M) 135 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1789 of 2026 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 07.07.2026 SANDEEP BALI ......APPELLANT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .........RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr.Sachin Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Rahul Rampal, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No. 1 to 4-State. Mr. Rehatbir Singh Mann, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. ***** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.(ORAL) 1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 14.05.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 14924 of 2026, titled as Sandeep Bali vs. State of Punjab and others, whereby the order of reversion of the appellant from the post of Safai Mate to Safai Sewak has been upheld. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was appointed as a ‘Safai Sewak’ in Municipal Council Nabha on 12.01.2019 and by the resolution No. 105 dated 24.04.2022, he was promoted to the post of ‘Safai Mate’. The said order was recalled on 30.04.2026 (Annexure P-7), thereby reverting the appellant to the post of NITIN 2026.07.09 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No. 1789 of 2026 (O&M) ‘Safai Sewak’. It is contended that the order of reversion was passed without affording any opportunity of being heard to the appellant and, thus, in violation of the principles of natural justice, which aspect has been ignored by the learned Single Judge while upholding the same. 2.1 Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that any order entailing civil consequences can only be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the order reverting the appellant to the post of ‘Safai Sewak’ could not have been passed without complying with the said requirement, which has also been ignored by the learned Single Judge. 3. Notice of motion. 4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rahul Rampal, Addl. A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4-State. 5. At this stage, Mr. Rehatbir Singh Mann, Advocate, appears on behalf of respondent No.5 and has filed his ‘Vakalatnama’ in Court today. The same is taken on record. 6. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4-State, as well as learned counsel for respondent No.5, submit that both the order of reversion and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge are well- reasoned and justified and that the present appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book carefully. NITIN 2026.07.09 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No. 1789 of 2026 (O&M) 8. It may be noticed that though the appellant was promoted from the post of ‘Safai Sewak’ to ‘Safai Mate’ on 24.04.2022, it is a matter of fact, which has been conceded by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, that there were senior ‘Safai Sewaks’ in seniority list as per the Government rules who were available and eligible for promotion on the relevant date, but their claim was not considered. Consequently, the appellant was reverted from the post of ‘Safai Mate’ to the post of ‘Safai Sewak’. 9. As per the settled principle of law, every eligible ‘Safai Sewak’ is entitled to be considered for promotion. In the present case, the senior ‘Safai Sewaks’, who were senior to the appellant, were not considered for promotion. Rather, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had never sought promotion and that the same was granted voluntarily by the Department and was accepted by him. 10. Any inaction on the part of the Department or any illegality committed in granting promotion does not confer any right upon the beneficiary to continue to enjoy such benefit when the same has been granted contrary to the Rules governing the service. Once it stands conceded before this Court that the senior ‘Safai Sewaks’ were not considered while promoting the appellant, the order of reversion passed on that ground cannot be treated as arbitrary or illegal. 11. The second argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that any order entailing civil consequences cannot be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. NITIN 2026.07.09 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No. 1789 of 2026 (O&M) 12. It may be noticed that the purpose of issuing a show cause notice is to enable the employee to furnish a plausible explanation with regard to the proposed action. The requirement is not an empty formality; rather, any explanation, if offered by the employee, is required to be considered before taking the proposed action. 13. In the present case, the absence of a show cause notice has not caused any prejudice to the appellant because it is a conceded position before this Court that, on the date when the appellant was promoted as a ‘Safai Mate’, senior ‘Safai Sewaks’ were eligible and available for the promotion on the relevant date but their claim was not considered. Hence, even if a show cause notice had been issued, there was no valid explanation available to justify the promotion of the appellant in the absence of consideration of the claims of the senior eligible ‘Safai Sewaks’. Therefore, non-grant of an opportunity of being heard has not been resulted in any prejudice to the appellant, particularly when no explanation has been shown to be available with the appellant qua the proposed action or the ultimate action taken against him. 14. Hence, keeping in view the exceptional facts and circumstances of the present case, as the appellant has not been able to demonstrate any prejudice having been caused on account of non-grant of an opportunity of hearing, the order impugned herein cannot be set aside solely on that ground in the absence of any prejudice being shown. 15. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. NITIN 2026.07.09 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No. 1789 of 2026 (O&M) 16. Consequently, the present appeal, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. 17. However, it is made clear that no observation has been made either by the learned Single Judge or by this Court that the appellant is not eligible for promotion. 18. It may be noticed that, keeping in view the number of vacancies to be filled and the employees to be considered on the basis of seniority, in case the appellant comes within the zone of consideration, his claim shall be considered for promotion to the post of ‘Safai Mate’ as and when the Municipal Council takes up the exercise of making such promotions. 19. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE JULY 07, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) nitin JUDGE Whether Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No NITIN 2026.07.09 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document