IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1553 of 2006 (S/S) Smt. Anita Nainwal Widow of late Shri Anil Nainwal ..……… Petitioner Versus District Judge, Pauri Garhwal ……… Respondents. Mr. Sanju Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Sanju Bhatt, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Siddhartha Sah, the learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner was working as an Upper Division Clerk in the Judgeship of Pauri Garhwal and, upon completion of 15 years of service, died in harness on 6th July, 2006 leaving behind the petitioner and two minor children. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The District Judge, after considering the matter, issued an appointment letter dated 10th August, 2006 appointing the petitioner as a Lower Division Clerk under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. Subsequently, by an order dated 14/09/2006, the services of the petitioner was terminated. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. Upon a perusal of the impugned order, the Court finds that some dispute arose between the petitioner and her in-laws with regard to the disbursement of service benefits and, in that regard, the impugned order indicates that the petitioner mis-behaved with the District Judge and, on that basis, the order of termination was issued. Whatever may have been the aggravating factor, the authority was required to pass the order in accordance with the 2 principles of natural justice. The Court finds that no notice or an opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before terminating her services. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds under the dying-in-harness scheme. Such appointment is substantive in nature as held in the case of Ravi Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, [(1999) 3 UPLBEC 2263]. Since the appointment was substantive in nature, no order could have been issued terminating the services of the petitioner without issuing a show cause notice and without calling for a reply. Admittedly, this was not done. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner would be reinstated but will not be entitled for payment of any backwages from the date of her termination till the date of her reinstatement but this period would be counted towards her length of service. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 28.06.2010 Shiv 3