IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 11637 of 2008 Date of decision: 19.05.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Shamsher Singh. .....Petitioner. Versus Chairman-cum- Managing Director, H.P. Ex-Servicemen Corporation & another. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Adarsh Sahrma, Amicus Curiae. For the respondents: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayer vide para 7(i): “7(i) That the impugned order dated 23.8.04 terminating the service of the applicant may be set aside/quashed & the respondents may be directed to re- instate/appoint the applicant as S/Guard on the same terms & conditions as he was working prior to his termination, with all consequential benefits.” 2. In reply, on behalf of the respondents, the following stand has been taken vide para 2 on merits: “2. That the contents of para 3 of the application are false, wrong and incorrect and hence denied. In fact the applicant was employed as security guard on contract basis for a period of one year from 16.2.2002 to 15.2.2003 by the respondent No. 1 being ward of Ex-Serviceman and needy person under the provisions contained in the guidelines issued by the Director General Resettlement, Army Headquarters, New Delhi stated supra on certain terms and conditions of service which were accepted and signed 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... by the applicant before joining the service as security guard. A photostat copy of agreement containing terms and conditions of service signed by the applicant is attached as per Annexure R-1. Now the principal employer (SJVN Shimla) of the applicant has denied to accept the civilians as security guards on the plea that they do not possess the eligibility conditions required for the post of security guard of any organization. Also there is no provision in para 22 of revised edition of guidelines dated 01 June 2003 received recently from the Director General of Resettlement, Army Headquarters, New Delhi, for employment of civilians as security guards and as such the services of the applicant alongwith other four security guards (civilians) were terminated by the respondent no. 1 on denial by the principal employer. Now the applicant can not be re-employed when there is no provision for employment of civilians as security guards and the principal employer is also denying to accept civilians in their organization as security guards.”” 3. Supplementary affidavit in terms of order dated 28.04.2011 filed, which is taken on record. Mr. R.L. Chauhan, Assistant Security Officer of respondent No. 1-Corporation is also present in compliance of the said order. 4. It is manifest from the record that services of the petitioner as Security Guard were dispensed with vide Office Order dated 3rd June, 2004, Annexure P-1, issued by respondent No. 1 without adhering to the principles of natural justice and as such the same cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed with a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service as Security Guard forthwith alongwith seniority from the date of termination, i.e., 10.07.2004, alongwith back wages to the extent of 30% alongwith interest @ 6% per annum payable by respondent No. 2, Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam, Limited, Shimla (earlier known as 'NJPC'), within a month from the date of production of copy of this judgment ...3... by the petitioner. 5. Let a copy of this judgment be supplied to the petitioner free of cost as he is represented by Amicus Curiae. 6. In view of the above the petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 19th May, 2011 (virender)