IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2536 of 2008. Decided on: 9.3.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Chittar Lekha Malhotra … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Biology in Government Senior Secondary School, Karsog, District Mandi on 12.12.1979. It appears that the decision was taken by the respondent-State to regularize her services on 12.11.1982. However, the State Government has taken a decision on 27.7.1984 to revoke the order of regularization. She was called upon to make a representation against this decision to the State Government on 20.9.1984. She made a representation on 10.10.1984. Her precise case was that the regularization done by the Department on 12.11.1982 was in accordance with law. In other words, she has prayed for revocation of order dated 27.7.1984. The representation made by the petitioner was turned down by the Director of Education on 16.1.1985. She has assailed this decision before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal converted the application 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 into representation to be decided by the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The same was rejected by the Commissioner-cum- Secretary (Education) on 21.4.1995. The petitioner has assailed order dated 21.4.1995. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that the petitioner was appointed on 12.12.1979. She was regularized on 12.11.1982. This decision was reversed by the State Government on 27.7.1984. She was permitted to file the representation after the decision was already taken to revoke her regularization. The petitioner ought to have been given pre-decisional hearing. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner has not misled the authorities at the time of regularization of her services. The State in its own wisdom took the decision to regularize her on 12.11.1982. She has worked from 12.12.1979 to 12.11.1982 on regular basis till this order was revoked on 16.1.1985. She has been paid the salary and increments from 1982 to 16.1.1985. The learned Commissioner-cum- Secretary (Education) has come to the conclusion that since the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis, she was not entitled to any increment. The petitioner was visited with civil consequences. The petitioner had already spent the amount paid to her by way of annual increments and the same cannot be permitted to be recovered at this belated stage. The decision dated 12.11.1982 has been reversed on 16.1.1985. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the annual increments for this period. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 21.4.1995, Annexure A-2 is quashed and set aside. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 9, 2009. (cr)