IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.13644 /2008 Decided on:23.2.2011 _____________________________________________ Guddi Devi alias Damodri. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ansul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was promoted on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, as whole time contingent paid Class-IV, vide office order dated 7.3.2005. He has been reverted vide office order dated 13.4.2006. Office order dated 13.4.2006 has been issued on the basis of the judgment of the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal rendered in O.As. No. 1765/2005 and 1716/2005. Petitioner has not been heard before the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 issuance of office order dated 13.4.2006. He has suffered civil and evil consequences. Though he was regularly promoted, he has been reverted without hearing him. It was expected from the respondent-State atleast to issue notice to the petitioner before the issuance of office order dated 13.4.2006 to explain his position. 2. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another versus Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 750 have held that a person must be given an opportunity before he is actually reverted. He may be in a position to satisfy the authorities that there was no mistake. Their Lordships have further held that even otherwise, principles of natural justice and fair play require giving of such opportunity to him. Their Lordships have held as under: “34. True it is that before such an action is taken and a person is actually reverted, he must be given an opportunity to show cause why the proposed action should not be taken. He may be able to satisfy the Authorities that there was no such mistake. But even otherwise, principles of natural justice and fair play require giving of such opportunity to him. But as observed earlier, in the instance case, in accordance with Rule 31-A of the Fundamental Rules, notice was issued to the respondent-employee, explanation was sought and thereafter the order was passed. The said order, in our considered view, was just, proper and in consonance with law and it ought not to have been set aside by the Tribunal or by the High Court. To that extent, therefore, 3 the orders impugned in this appeal deserve to be set aside.” 3. In view of the observations and the discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-6 dated 13.4.2006 is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 23.2.2011 *awasthi*