CWP(T) No. 313/2008 21.07.2010 Present: Mr. A. K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents Petitioner was engaged on daily wages as Beldar, Chowkidar, Water Guard, Bill Clerk, Meter Reader and Work Inspector w.e.f. 1.1.1994 to 1.1.1997. It appears he served in different categories. He completed 10 years of continuous service on 31.12.1994 and as such, in terms of the policy of the Government was appointed as Complaint Attendant (Class-III) by the Superintending Engineer vide letter dated 28.1.1995. On 17.8.2002 he was issued a show cause notice wherein it was pointed out that his services as Complaint Attendant be not regularized w.e.f. 1.1.2002 instead of 1.1.1991. 2. The action was contemplated for the reason that petitioner’s regularization was due to inadvertence and incorrect furnishing of information. The error was pointed out in the proceedings initiated by the similarly situated workers and the case of regularization was reviewed by the D.P.C. when the mistake was found in the regularization process. Consequently show cause notice was issued which called upon the petitioner to respond to the following contemplated action: “a) why your services should not be ordered to be regularized as Beldar w.e.f. 1.1.1994 in the lowest grade as per the Government policy. In that event the excess of the salary drawn by you shall be recovered in installments from future wages. or b) why your services shall not be considered to be on daily wages as Supervisor w.e.f. 1.1.1994 in case alternative is not acceptable. Since you are working as Supervisor w.e.f. 1.1.1992 on daily wages thereby entitling you to be regularized on the completion of ten years of continuous service as Supervisor w.e.f. 1.1.2002 only. In that event you shall be deemed to on daily wage w.e.f. 1.1.1994 and the difference of the wages shall be adjusted in your future wages in installments. You shall be considered for regularization in future on completion of 10 years or less period as per the policy framed by the Government in this behalf. c) Since the information supplied by you is tampered with and incorrectly done in convenience (sic.) with the official of the Division, as to shy (sic.) `the action under Rules 14 of C.C.S. (C.C.A.) shall not be taken against you for imposing major penalty.” 3. Petitioner responded to the same and after considering the material on record, vide Office Order dated 29.6.1987 the authorities passed an order operative portion of which reads as under: “Now, therefore, appointment order issued vide this office order No.17854-57 dated 28-01-95 is hereby withdrawn and is modified to the extent that the regularization of the said Sh. Surinder Singh as W.I. is made w.e.f. 1.1.2002 and other terms and conditions shall remain the same. However, in view of judgments in various cases the difference of wages is waived off and the period for 1-1-94 to 2001 shall be treated as daily wags as on 31-12-2001.” 4. Aggrieved of the same petitioner filed O.A. No. 1764/2007 before the H.P Administrative Tribunal, in which a direction was issued that petitioner’s case be considered as a representation and decided on merits. Consequently, after hearing the petitioner the authorities passed a fresh order dated 12.11.2007. 5. Now this order is self speaking. There is no dispute that petitioner was heard before the same was passed. The authorities found that petitioner had not completed 10 years of continuous service prior to 31.12.1994 and thus was wrongly regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1993. He ought to have been regularized as a Beldar only w.e.f. 1.1.1994. While the matter was being considered by the screening Committee for regularization, the record showing incorrect position with regard to the number of man-days for which the workers had served the Govt. was perused and the error discovered. 6. Consequently, the authorities, in my considered view, rightly took the decision in terms of the impugned order dated 12.11.2007. 7. Much stress has been laid on the fact that no enquiry, as contemplated in the show cause notice dated 17.8.2002 was initiated against the petitioner, hence the impugned order is bad in law. The argument, in my considered view, is extremely fallacious. The authorities had two options before themselves (i) to rectify the mistake of according undue benefits to the petitioner and (ii) also taking disciplinary action for not having brought the true position to the notice of the authorities. 8. The authorities in their wisdom chose not to proceed with the matter by initiating disciplinary proceedings. Petitioner should be content with the same. 9. My attention has been invited to the order passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 178/2008 titled as Prem Singh vs. State of H.P.. I have perused the order and in my considered view, the same does not help the petitioner. No ratio of law has been laid down in the said decision. That apart, the order was passed on the basis of the concession made by the learned counsel for the State. 10. It cannot be said that any legally enforceable right of the petitioner stands violated. 11. For all the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the present petition. The interim order dated 15.2.2008 is vacated. The petition is consequently dismissed. July 21, 2010 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.