IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8096 of 2008. Decided on: 18.5.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Smt. Mahanti Devi and others. … Petitioners. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, A.A.G. __________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The petitioners were employed as daily waged Class IV Beldars, like Chowkidar etc. in the Irrigation & Public Health Division, Dehra in the month of June, 1989. The petitioners were granted work charged status of Beldars with effect from 1.4.1998 vide office order issued on 23.7.1999. However, office order issued on 23.7.1999 was withdrawn on 29.10.2001. Ms. Nidhi Sharma has strenuously argued that the petitioners have not been heard before the issuance of letter dated 29.10.2001. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that since the petitioners had not completed nine years as on 1.4.1998 as per letter dated 19.6.1999, they could not be 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 regularized. He then argued that the petitioners were informed on 13.9.1999 that certain clarifications were sought from the department and on the basis of clarification received, the appointment letters already issued could be withdrawn. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioners were granted work charged status vide letter dated 23.7.1999 with effect from 1.4.1998. It is apparent from the pleadings that as per communication No. IPH (A)2 (B)-1-3/96 dated 19.6.1999, the services of those daily rated workers were to be regularized who had completed nine years of regular service with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.3.1998. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to the details of mandays’ in respect of the petitioners. Nine years were to be counted up to 31.3.1998. However, the respondents had counted 365 days of the complete one year 1998 to grant the status of work charged to the petitioners. In case, 240 days are calculated each year up to 1.4.1998, the petitioners have only eight years of service and they would complete nine years on 1.4.1999. The petitioners were apprised of this position vide Annexures R-13 to R-16. In other words, they were put to notice by the respondent-State. In case, they were aggrieved by the issuance of Annexures R-13 to R-16, they could make representations against the same. They have not chosen to do so. The respondent had recommended the cases of the petitioners for regularization as per letter dated 29.10.2001 with effect from 1.4.1999. 3 Accordingly, it is held that no separate notice was required to be issued to the petitioners except Annexures R-13 to R-16. The petitioners were given opportunity, however, they have not utilized the same. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has also placed reliance upon condition number 8 of the appointment letter to strengthen the submission that in case it was found that the petitioners had not completed 240 days, it was not necessary to issue any separate show cause notice to the petitioners. The fact of the matter is that the petitioners had completed only eight years on 1.4.1998. Accordingly, they were required to be regularized with effect from 1.4.1999 and not with effect from 1.4.1998. There is sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice, as noticed hereinabove. The mistake which has been committed by the respondents by issuing letter dated 23.7.1999, has been rectified by issuing letter dated 29.10.2001. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the State shall consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization with effect from 1.4.1999. The interim order stands vacated. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 18, 2009. (cr)