THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.11642 of 2008 Reserved on : 21.07.2010 Decided on : 06.08.2010 Lal Singh …Petitioner -Versus- Secretary, H.P. State Electricity Board and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. Yes For the petitioners. : Mr. T.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate vice Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge : Petitioner joined the Municipal Committee, Mandi as Octroi Chowkidar initially on daily wages during the year 1975 and on regular basis w.e.f. 01.04.1978 and on the abolition of Octroi by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the petitioner joined respondent- Board as a Class-IV/Peon on 05.07.1982. He was promoted as Daftri by the respondent-Board on 26.03.2002. The operative portion of the letter dated 03.03.1983 reads thus: “The period of service including temporary services rendered by the Octroi employees in various Urban Local Bodies in H.P. Prior to abolition of Octroi in the Pradesh w.e.f. 01.04.1982 will be treated as continued service for all purposes except that these employees will 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? . Yes -2- not be given the benefit of previous service towards seniority in the respective cadre wherever absorbed.” 2. In sequel to the aforesaid decision, petitioner was granted proficiency step-ups on 4/1986, 4/1987 and 4/1994. These proficiency step-ups were given to the petitioner on the basis of instructions , which were issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh and adopted by the respondent-Board. However, vide Annexure-A-2 dated 30.08.2003, respondents have re-fixed the pay of the petitioner and he has been granted benefit of proficiency step-up on 05.07.1990, 05.07.1991 and 05.07.1998. Necessary orders for effecting the recoveries from the petitioner were also issued on 19.12.2003, 20.1.2004 and 12.03.2004. 3. Mr. T.C. Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that his client has not been issued any show cause notice before issuance of the impugned order. He then contended that the services rendered by his client in Urban Local Body were to be counted w.e.f. 01.04.1978 for the purpose of proficiency step-up. 4. Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate vice Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate has vehemently argued that services rendered by the petitioner in the Urban Local Body cannot be counted w.e.f. 01.04.1978. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. The petitioner was appointed on regular basis in the Municipal Committee, Mandi w.e.f. 01.04.1978. He has been absorbed -3- in the respondent-Board w.e.f. 06.09.1982. The services rendered by the petitioner, as per letter dated 03.03.1983 were to be counted for all intents and purposes except the benefit of previous service towards seniority in the respective cadre wherever absorbed. The petitioner has not sought any benefit towards seniority in the next department. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that the services rendered by him in the Urban Local Body before his absorption should be taken into consideration towards the qualifying services for the purpose of proficiency step-up. In fact the respondents have taken a decision to grant benefit to the petitioner by giving him proficiency step-ups on 4/1986, 4/1987 and 4/1994, however, the same has been withdrawn without issuing any show cause notice. The petitioner has suffered civil and evil consequences. He should have been heard before issuance of impugned order. The service of petitioner is to be counted w.e.f. 01.04.1978 on the basis of letter dated 03.03.1983 and on that basis he is entitled to proficiency step-ups after completing 8,9 and 16 years of service. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexures A-1 and A-2 are quashed and set aside. The effect of the quashing of these Annexures will be that the earlier decision, whereby the proficiency step-ups have been granted after 8,9 and 16 years of service after counting the service rendered by the petitioner in the Municipal Committee, Mandi, is restored. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge August 6, 2010 (K. Attri)