' MAHBOOB AHMAD, J.--This Intra-Court Appeal under clause (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance No, VIII of 1972, is directed against the judgment dated 21-5-1979 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No, 2174-S of 1979. In the said writ petition the appellant had prayed for a declaration that orders dated 28-6-1978, 20-11-1978 and 18-3-1979 be declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect with a further request that the respondent be directed to give effect to the pro forma promotion of the appellant which was allowed to him by order dated 23-12-1974 issued vide No, Lab(1)-10- 20/72. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide the impugned judgment holding that concession of a functionary of the Government against a provision of law would not bind the Government nor would the Government be estopped from taking a stance contrary to that concession and in consonance with the provision of law. It was also held that no other adverse order has been passed against the appellant as he has been allowed the other benefits that will be permissible to him.
2. Feeling dissatisfied with this judgment of the learned Single Judge the appellant has filed the present Intra Court Appeal.
3. The appellant in support of his case has given long drawn facts which to us do not appear to be relevant to the present controversy and need not, therefore, be repeated. We suffice by observing that the appellant, according to the admitted position, would have retired on 16-3-1975. The essence of the grievance of the appellant is that the pro forma promotion afforded to him vide order No, Lab(1)-10-20/72, dated 23-12-1974 has been withdrawn by the respondent Government by illegally passing the three orders aforementioned which were impugned in the writ petition. The appellant has contended that the pro forma promotion aforementioned by which he stood promoted to Grade-18 w,e,f, 1-3-1972 could not be withdrawn by the respondent at all and in any case this could not be done when the appellant had submitted a charge-report in pursuance of the order aforementioned. It is also asserted by the appellant that in no case the order conferring pro forma promotion on him could be changed or varied without notice to the appellant and without affording him an opportunity of hearing.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent was asked by us to show under what power the Government had the locus poenitentiae to withdraw the pro forma promotion after this has been notified and in pursuance thereof the appellant had submitted his charge report. No provision empowering the Government in this behalf has been referred to, except that the Government could do so under the General Clauses Act.
5. We are afraid that such a position cannot be maintained as by so doing the Government would be clothed with a naked power to undo things unilaterally. The learned counsel when further asked as to whether the power under the General Clauses Act, referred to by him, could be exercised without notice to the person to be affected, very candidly conceded that it could not be so done.
Now it is the admitted position that the Notification conferring pro forma promotion upon the appellant was issued on 23-12-1974 and a charge report had been submitted by him in pursuance thereof and that the subsequent impugned orders made on 28-6-1978, 20-11-1978 and 18-3-1979 had been passed not only without notice to the appellant arid without affording an opportunity of hearing to him but also after lapse of 4/more than 4 years. Such an exercise of power can obviously be not countenanced.
6. Resultantly this appeal is allowed and the impugned orders of the respondent are declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. The result of the above manifestly is that the order dated 23-12- 1974 conferring pro forma promotion upon the appellant remains in force.