HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1628 of 2003 (S/S) {Old No.1974 of 2000} Sumrat Singh and others … Petitioners Versus State and others …. Respondents WITH Writ Petition No.1165 of 2009 (S/S) {Old No.1867 of 2000} Ram Bilas S/o Sri Chotey … Petitioner Versus State and others …. Respondents WITH Writ Petition No.1630 of 2003 (S/S) {Old No.1910 of 2000} Suraj Pal … Petitioner Versus State and others …. Respondents WITH Writ Petition No.1627 of 2003 (S/S) {Old No.1975 of 2000} Shyam Singh S/o Pati Ram … Petitioner Versus State and others …. Respondents Dated:- 17th June, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Since all the aforesaid writ petitions raise a common issue, the same is being decided together. Heard Sri Ravi Joshi, the learned counsel holding brief of Sri Rajendra Kotiyal, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. In Writ Petition No.1628 of 2003 (S/S), the petitioners are working on a daily wage basis on a Class IV post in the Animal Husbandry Department since 1990/1991. On 27th February, 1997, the 2 services of the petitioners was regularised on the basis of the seniority, but, subsequently, by the impugned order dated 06.04.2000, the services of the petitioners was terminated. The petitioners, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court. Upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, this matter has been transferred to this Court. The counter affidavit reveals that since material irregularities were committed by the appointing authority in not following the Government Orders while regularizing their services, the services of the petitioners could not be regularised and, consequently, their services was terminated. At the time when the writ petition was filed, the court passed an interim order staying the effect of the impugned order dated 06.04.2000. The Court further directed the opposite party to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity. As a result of the interim order, the petitioners are working. It transpires that a Committee was constituted by the respondents, who after making an inquiry submitted a report to the Government on 15.12.2000 indicating that the petitioners were appointed in accordance with the rules and that the petitioners were rightly regularised in accordance with the relevant Government Order dated 27.02.1997. In view of the said report coupled with the fact that the petitioners’ services having been regularised, the order of termination was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Once the services of the petitioners has been regularised, they are deemed to be the regular workmen in a regular establishment and, consequently, the services of the petitioners could not be dispensed with unless a show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing was provided to them. Since the same was not done, the impugned order, being in violation of the principle of natural justice, cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 3 Let a copy of this order be placed in the connected writ petitions i.e. W.P. Nos.1165 of 2009 (S/S), 1630 of 2003 (S/S) and 1627 of 2003 (S/S). (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 17.06.2010 LSR