IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. 4598 of 2008. Decided on: 1st September, 2010. Jas Dei alias Jai Dei. …Petitioner. -Versus- The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. R.S. Gautam, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No. 4. : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Janahal on 07.07.1997. Her services were terminated on 03.09.1997. The appointment and working conditions of the Part Time Workers are regulated as per notification dated 06.07.1996, paragraph No.-8 whereof reads thus: “TERMINATION/RESIGNATION: Service Rules Governing permanent govt. servant will not be applicable for part time water carrier. Their services will be absolutely temporary and liable to be terminated by giving a notice of one month or one month’s salary in lieu thereof. They will also have the privilege to resign if they so wish by giving a notice of one month.” 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. The case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that neither any notice was issued to her as stipulated in paragraph-8 of the notification dated 06.07.1996 nor she has ever been associated in any enquiry initiated by the Deputy Commissioner. 3. The case of the respondent-State and the private respondent No. 4 precisely is that the petitioner has been terminated as per condition No.-1 of appointment letter dated 07.07.1997. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure R-1, whereby the process was initiated to hold an enquiry against the petitioner and it was found that the petitioner has filed a wrong certificate with regard to the distance from her residence to School. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been associated while conducting/holding the enquiry against her which culminated in order dated 27.08.1997. Petitioner has also not been issued any notice as per paragraph-8 of the notification dated 06.07.1996 before issuance of order dated 03.09.1997. Petitioner has been deprived of her livelihood, that too without complying with the principles of natural justice. It is settled law by now that any order which has civil and evil consequences, must be passed in conformity with the principles of natural justice. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-3, dated 03.09.1997 is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. In normal circumstances, the Court ought to have granted all the consequential benefits to the petitioner, however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is held entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/-. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge September 01, 2010. (bhupender)