IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 34 of 2006 State of Uttarakhand and another .……… Appellants Versus Km. Chandra Kala D/o Sri Hari Ram ……… Respondent Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Shri Bindesh Kumar Gupta, the learned Addl. Advocate General for the appellant and Shri Pankaj Purohit, the learned counsel for the opposite party/writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Basic Health Worker in the year 1989 and was put on probation for a period of two years. Upon the expiry of the period of probation, the writ petitioner continue to remain in service but subsequently by an order dated 23/28th March, 1992, the services of the petitioner was terminated without assigning any reason. The said order was passed under Rule 3 of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred as Rules, 1975). The petitioner being aggrieved filed a writ petition which was allowed by a judgment dated 19/11/2003. The writ Court held that the fact that the petitioner continued beyond a period of two years from the date of his initial appointment was entitled to be heard and that Article 14 of the Constitution was required to be read while invoking the provisions of Rule 3 of Rules, 1975. The learned Single Judge relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The learned Single Judge while reinstating the petitioner directed the respondents to consider the continuity of service of the petitioner by passing a fresh order within two weeks and further held that the petitioner would not be entitled for salary for the back period. It transpires that the respondents did not pass any order with regard to 2 continuity of service and accordingly a review application was filed which was allowed and the Court by an order dated 11th August, 2005 held that the petitioner would be entitled for continuity of service. The respondents i.e. the State being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders has filed the present special appeal. At the outset, the Court is of the opinion that the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 19-11-2003 is patently belated. It is no longer open to the appellant to question the veracity of the judgment dated 19-11-2003 after a gap of almost three years. Further, the Court finds that pursuant to the order of the Court dated 19-11-2003, the petitioner was allowed to join the services on 10th February, 2004. Even otherwise, we do not find any palpable error in the order of the learned Single Judge while setting aside the order of termination. It is clear that the principles of natural justice was required to be complied with and an opportunity was required to be given even to a temporary employee who had continued beyond the period of probation. This Court further finds that since no action was taken by the respondents on the question of continuity of service, this Court was obliged to pass an order directing the writ petitioner to be treated to be in continuity of service. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal fails and is dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J.) 27.11.2009 Shiv/Bhaskar