IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 824 of 2005. Date of decision: 5.3.2010. State of H.P. and Ors. …..Petitioners. Vs. Joginder Singh …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. The petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 8.12.2004 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.(M) No.19/94. 2. The case of the respondent is that he was appointed as Pump Operator on daily wage basis in June 1980 without any break upto 31.3.1989. He was offered temporary post of work-charged pump operator after continuous service of eight years and nine months vide office order dated 31.3.1989 . He joined on the work- charged post on 1.4.1989, but after one month vide memo dated 10.5.1989 the services of the respondent were terminated as Pump Operator (work-charged) on extraneous grounds by passing unreasoned and cryptic order. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 3. The respondent thereafter was re-engaged on daily rate basis as Pump Operator on 10.6.1989. There was a post of work- charged Pump Operator with the petitioners but with malafide intention to deprive the respondent of financial benefit he was down graded from work charged Pump Operator to daily rated Pump Operator quite arbitrarily and illegally against the principles of natural justice. The person junior to respondent and equally situated was not touched. The respondent had been making representations against the arbitrary action of petitioner No.4. In December, 1993 the respondent was finally informed by petitioners that he could not be given work-charged post from back date. In these circumstances, the respondent had filed the petition. 4. The petitioners had contested the petition by filing reply. It has been stated by them that respondent was initially engaged as daily rated Fitter/Assistant Fitter in June 1980 and continued as such till 30.11.1981. He was then engaged as a daily rated Pump Operator w.e.f. 1.12.1981 and worked as such till 30.3.1989. He was appointed as work charged Pump Operator on 31.3.1989 and worked as such till 9.6.1989. The respondent was appointed as work charged Pump Operator inadvertently and worked as such till 9.6.1989, when he had to be re-engaged on daily wages w.e.f. 10.6.1986 as his appointment on work-charged basis had been done inadvertently. In these circumstances the appointment of respondent on work-charged basis was cancelled. The respondent was not fulfilling the minimum required service/experience to become eligible for appointment as Pump Operator on work-charged basis. As per criteria laid down in the Chief Engineer ( south) I & PH Department, Shimla letter dated 27.1.1989, he could not be considered for appointment on work-charged basis. The respondent had been working as a daily rated Fitter and not a daily rated Pump Operator on 31.8.1980. 5. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has held that respondent most of the time had been working as Pump Operator w.e.f. 21.6.1980 to 1.4.1989. Out of total service of nine years the respondent had worked as a Fitter for about one and half years and Pump Operator for seven and half years. The respondent had thus completed nearly eight years of qualifying service as Pump Operator upto 31.3.1989. The respondent was appointed as work-charged Pump Operator in compliance to office order dated 3.5.1989 of the Superintending Engineer, IPH Circle, Kullu. The services of the respondent as Pump Operator work-charged were terminated vide memo dated 10.5.1989 issued by petitioner No.4. The memo dated 10.5.1989 is bad for non-compliance of principles of natural justice. The respondent was appointed as work-charged Pump Operator on 31.3.1989 as per petitioners. It is a different matter that petitioners have taken the plea that work-charged Pump Operator appointment of respondent was by mistake. In any case memo dated 10.5.1989 terminating the services of respondent as work-charged Pump Operator had civil consequences; therefore, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to hear the respondent before passing any order adversely affecting the work-charged employment of respondent. There is nothing on record to show that before issuing memo dated 10.5.1989 terminating the services of respondent by petitioner No.4 as work-charged Pump Operator he was heard. 6. In addition, the respondent was appointed by petitioner No.4 as work-charged Pump Operator in compliance to the order of Superintending Engineer, IPH Circle, Kullu which is clear from Annexure P3 dated 31.3.1989. The services of the respondent were terminated vide memo dated 10.5.1989 by petitioner No.4. There is nothing in the memo dated 10.5.1989 that it was issued by petitioner No.4 with approval, concurrence of Superintending Engineer. Thus taken from any angle the memo dated 10.5.1989 terminating the services of the respondent as work-charged Pump Operator is not sustainable. 7. The petitioners have vaguely taken the plea of limitation in the petition. The respondent in para-5 of the Original Application after narrating the facts has stated that the application is within limitation. In reply to the paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Original Application, the petitioners have pleaded that these paras do not call for any reply except that the Original Application is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. No specific plea of limitation was taken in the reply. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the material on record. The petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference. 8. No other point was urged. 9. The result of above discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Kuldip Singh ), ( Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. Judge. March 5, 2010 (sks)