IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 08 of 2007 (S/S) Pratap Singh S/o Shri Kitar Singh R/o Village Uttardug, Post Syakot, District Bageshwar. . Petitioner ...………… [ Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary Public Works Department Govt. of Uttaranchal at Dehradun. 2. Engineer in Chief Engineer Public Works Department Dehradun. 3. The Executive Engineer Public Works Department Pithoragarh. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, Addl. Advocate General for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 07.09.2000, passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner has been divested from the regular post of Beldar to that of a daily wage worker. 2 3) Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages as Beldar, and is working in the department since 1986. Thereafter, he is given pay scale of 305 – 390 from different dates. The petitioner is still working and getting minimum wages of Rs. 2,550/- per month. The petitioner was confirmed w.e.f. 24.08.1999 by the order of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Pithoragarh, on the admissible pay scale of the Class IV employees i.e. 2550 – 3200, but thereafter vide order dated 07.09.2000, again his regularization was cancelled and now he is getting minimum wages. According to the petitioner he made several representations to the respondents requesting them that he has completed 18–20 years service in the department and, as such, entitled for regularization. But, till date, the respondents have not paid any heed in the matter. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court pronounced in Writ Petition No. 101 (S/S) of 2000 and Writ Petition No. 236 (S/S) of 2000. 5) A Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 101 (S/S) of 2000, Gyan Prakash and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, decided on 22.10.2003, has held as under: “The cancellation orders could not have been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as held by this Court in Writ Petition No. 236 (S/S) of 2000; Pooran Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, relying upon the decision 3 of Apex court in Basudeo Tewari Vs. Sido Kanhu University and others (1998) 8 S.C.C. 194 and Gajanan L. Parnekar Vs. State of Goa and another (1998) 8 S.C.C. Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.C. Verma has held as under: “It is not disputed that the cancellation orders have been passed without any notice or pay in lieu of notice as required in condition No. 2 of the regularization orders contained in Annexure No. 1, therefore, cancellation orders have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. As the regularization orders were passed in implementation of the Scheme contained in Government Order dated 15.10.1997 after due selection and the petitioners were regularized against the then existing posts, as such, the reason assigned for cancellation that the posts have been reallocated by the Chief Engineer vide order dated 10.04.2000 is not acceptable On account of cancellation of regularization, the petitioners have suffered civil consequences, therefore, the cancellation orders could not have been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as held by the Apex court in Basudeo Tewary Vs. Sido Kanhu University and others (1998) 8 S.C.C. 194. In Gajanan L. Parnekar Vs. State of Goa and another (1998) 8 S.C.C., the Apex court held that recall of order of absorption without giving notice or opportunity of hearing is violative of principles of natural justice.” 4 Admittedly, the orders of cancellation have been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioners. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the orders passed by the respondent cancelling the regularization of the petitioners, are quashed. No order as to costs.” 6) In view of the judgments delivered by two different Benches of this Court in Writ Petition No. 101 (S/S) 2000 and Writ Petition No. 236 (S/S) 2000, decided on 22.10.2003 and 25.09.2003 respectively (and which have attained finality), this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order which has been quashed on the petitions filed by other similarly situated persons, cannot be permitted to remain enforce as against the present petitioner. 7) Therefore, this writ petition is allowed impugned order dated 07.09.2000 is quashed so far as it relates to petitioner. He shall be given all benefits given to other similarly situated employees working as Beldars. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. August 13, 2008. H.Negi