' SH. HAKIM Ali, J.--- I intend to dispose of the instant writ petition as well as the Writ Petition No,28-S of 2007/BWP (Muhammad Afzal v. Tehsil Municipal Administration and others) as both these writ petitions have arisen from one and the same cause of action and common facts and law are involved therein.
2. Through the instant writ petition, writ petitioner has sought a direction to be issued to respondents to deliver the salary of petitioner in BS-5 w,e,f, July, 2005 up till now and onward.
3. The facts in brief as narrated are that petitioner was appointed by Municipal Committee, Hasilpur on 27-1-1993 as Oilman water works in BPS-1. On 4-7-2005 upon the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee, he was promoted from BS-1 to BS-5 as Junior Clerk/Store Keeper. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has been performing that duty since then as a clerk and was, therefore, entitled for the pay of BS-5.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submits that the order dated 4-7-2005 was withdrawn through order dated 28-6-2006 as the promotion of petitioner was wrongly made.
There was only one vacant seat for appointment of Junior Clerk and that was filled in by the appointment of Muhammad Anwar, who was senior to the writ petitioner. The other vacant post was filled in by the appointment of Sohail Ahmad, who was a son of an employee of the Municipal Committee, Hasilpur and was entitled as a matter of right to be appointed on the basis of that right. Learned counsel also submits that after the objection was raised by Audit Department, the order of appointment as Junior Clerk was withdrawn on 28-6-2006. Therefore the petitioner cannot claim pay from 4-7-2005, as he was illegally appointed on that post. He further submits that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the petitioner has got another alternate remedy of appeal/revision before the competent authority, therefore, the writ petition is not competent. As the promotion order dated 4-7-2005 was illegal, therefore, the successor of Municipal Committee, Hasilpur, namely the Tehsil Municipal Administration had got the power to review the earlier order passed on 4-7-2005 as the aforementioned order was passed illegally.
5. Writ Petition No,28-S of 2007/BWP (Muhammad Afzal v. Tehsil Municipal Administration and others) has been filed by Muhammad Afzal against the order dated 28-6-2006 by which his promotion as Junior Clerk/Store Keeper was withdrawn illegal and without jurisdiction. He has also prayed in the writ petition that payment of salary in BS-5 w,e,f, July, 2005 till today be directed to be paid.
6. Learned counsel for Muhammad Afzal, petitioner also submits that the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Clerk/Store Keeper was approved by Resident Auditor, as in his service book the Resident Auditor had signed as verifying this fact of promotion of the petitioner to be correct and had not objected to it. He has also referred to the signature of Tehsil Officer (Finance), Hasilpur and Tehsil Municipal Officer, Hasilpur, which were put on the service book of the petitioner with regard to his promotion.
7. After hearing both the learned counsel and from the perusal of record it has transpired that the promotion of Muhammad Afzal, writ petitioner on 4-7-2005 on the basis of recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee is an admitted fact. As to whether the petitioner was illegally or legally promoted that fact was to be resolved after the notice was issued to the write petitioner. I have not found any notice having been issued to the writ petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 28-6-2006 by which his promotion was withdrawn/cancelled. After the promotion had been allowed and the petitioner had commenced his work as promoted appointee, a right had accrued to the writ petitioner that before passing an adverse order, he must have been granted an opportunity of hearing. After hearing petitioner, then an order could be passed in accordance with the law, keeping all the facts before deciding the fate of promotion of petitioner. In both these writ petitions, respondents have failed to append any notice, which was if issued to the writ petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 28-6-2006. Therefore, this order dated 28-6-2006 cannot be considered to have been passed in accordance with law. It is a cardinal principle of law of natural justice that before passing an adverse order, the affectee must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order dated 28-6-2006 withdrawing/cancelling the promotion cannot be upheld and is declared as illegal and unlawful. Consequently, the respondents are directed to deliver the pay of writ petitioner from 4-7-2005 when the petitioner was admittedly promoted, up till this day and till decision afresh. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law. With this direction/observation, the writ petitions are accepted.