WP(C) 2315/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KOTISWAR SINGH In this writ petition, two petitioners who had been working ini tially as muster roll workers under PHED, Govt. of Assam have approached this co urt for quashing and setting aside the order No. 506 dated 24.3.06 in Annexure- 6 to the writ petition whereby their regularization order as Khalasi vide order No.222 dated 7.10.05 was cancelled and they were reverted back to their original post as muster roll labourers. [2] The brief facts of the case as may be relevant for considerati on may be stated as below. [3] It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had been working as muster roll workers w.e.f. 10.12.90. The petitioner No.1 was engaged in the office of the respondent no. 4 i.e. Executive Engineer, PHED as helper an d his service was being utilized by the office for clerical works, typing/helpin g to the LDA in dispatching and issuing letter. Petitioner No. 2 was also engage d in the office of the Executive Engineer and his service was initially utilized against the scheme Hojai Town Adarsha Bazar Scheme Zone-II and doing the work of helper day and night as pump operator. [4] The petitioners contend that as they were working as muster roll workers for a long period of time, they had approached this court by filing a w rit petition being CR No. 140/97 seeking for a direction to regularize their ser vices in view of the long services the petitioners had rendered. [5] In the aforesaid CR No. 140/97, this court passed an interim ord er on 03.2.97 stating that as the petitioners had worked as muster roll workers since 10.12.90 till 6.1.97, until further orders from this court, the petitioner s shall be allowed to continue. The respondents were further directed to pay the ir wages and salary etc. in accordance with law and it was also provided that if in the meantime, their services were discontinued, they shall be taken back in service immediately. [6] The aforesaid writ petition being CR No. 140/97 was disposed of by a final order passed on 21.5.2002 reiterating the earlier direction passed on 03.2.97 as stated above. By the aforesaid final order, this court taking cogniz ance of the government policy for regularization disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with a direction to the authorities to consider the case of the petitio ners for regularization as per the policy decision of the State government empl oyees who had joined services prior to 1.4.93 and pass appropriate orders keepin g in view the observation of the Division Bench of this court given in para Nos. 8,10, 14 and 15 in the case Achyut Chanda Pathak & ors. vs. State of Assam, 200 0 (1) GLT 213 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). [7] It is the case of the petitioners that respondents regularized t he services of the petitioners pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the court dated 3.2.1997 as well as in terms of the government policy for regularization. Accordingly, the petitioners along with others were regularized as Khalasi w.e.f . 22.7.05 vide order no. 222 dated 7.10.05 in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. I t is the case of the petitioners that to the utter surprise of the petitioner th e respondent no. 4 i.e. Executive Engineer (PHE), Hojai Divison issued an order under No. 506 dated 24.3.2006 canceling the regularization order of the petition ers and reverted both of them to their original posts as muster roll labourers w ith immediate effect. The aforesaid order dated 24.3.06 was stated to have been passed in pursuance of the order dated 10.02.06 and 03.3.2006 passed by the resp ondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively. However, it is stated by the petitioners that the aforesaid orders dated 10.2.06 and 3.3.06 were not furnished to them along w ith the impugned order dated 24.3.2006. [8] The petitioners submit that no reason has been assigned in the a foresaid impugned order nor any opportunity of being heard was given to the pet itioners before the aforesaid cancellation order dated 24.3.06 was issued. Accor dingly, being aggrieved, they have filed the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid order dated 24.3.2006. [9] The main contention of the petitioners is that they were indeed working since 10.12.90 as muster roll workers and they are fully covered by the policy decision of the state government because of which they were regularized. As such, their regularization could not be cancelled without giving any show cau se notice or without assigning any reason thereof and the present cancellation o rder dated 24.3.06 in Annexure-6 is liable to be set aside as being violative of the principles of natural justice. [10] The respondents have filed their affidavits-in-opposition. In pa ra 4 of the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 it has been stated that the petitioner No. 1 was actually engaged as regular muster roll worker on 1.11.93 a nd petitioner No.2 on 1.1.94 which is supported by the service book. It is the c ase of the respondents that as per government decision taken vide office Order N o.222 dated 7.10.05, the services of those work charged/muster roll workers, who were engaged prior to 1.4.93 are to be regularized. It is the case of the respo ndents that as the petitioners were engaged after 1.4.93 as stated above, they w ere not entitled to be regularized, but their services were regularized inadvert ently by the authority. It is also the case of the respondents that having detec ted the aforesaid mistake committed inadvertently, the same was rectified and ac cordingly as consequent of the said rectification, the aforesaid cancellation or der dated 24.3.06 was issued. It is also the case of the respondent that the pet itioners, being appointed after the aforesaid cut-off date of 1.4.93, were not e ligible for consideration for regularization and as such, they have no vested ri ght for regularization. Accordingly, the aforesaid cancellation order is in orde r and no grievance can be made out of it. [11] In response to the aforesaid contention of the respondents, the counsel for the petitioners have pointed out that the contention that the petiti oners were appointed after 1.4.93 is not supported by the facts on record. Lear ned counsel has also pointed to the order passed by this court in earlier writ p etition being C.R. No.140/97 whereby this court has observed that the petitione rs were working since 10.12.90 and as such, the aforesaid statement of the respo ndents that they were appointed after 1.4.93 may not be accepted. It is also the case of the petitioners that they had been working for a long period of time an d till now they are serving as regular Khalasi by virtue of the interim order pa ssed by this court on 6.5.06 in that writ petition, C.R. No.140/1997 read with order dated 20.6.06 passed by the authorities consequent upon the aforesaid inte rim order passed by this court. In fact, the aforesaid order dated 20.6.06 passe d by the respondent No. 4 pursuant to the interim order passed in C.R. No.140 of 1997 clearly states that the petitioners are reinstated in the post of khalasi with immediate effect by vacating the earlier cancellation Office Order no. 506 dated 24.3.06. Accordingly, the counsel of the petitioners submits that their se rvices as regular khalasi may not be disturbed and they may be allowed to contin ue. Learned counsel in course of argument has also pointed out to certain offici al correspondences to show that in fact, ex-post facto sanction had been given f or retention of two numbers of muster roll workers in Grade-iv pertaining to the petitioners and as such, no harm will be done in case the services of the petit ioners are continued on regular service as khalasi. The aforesaid official commu nication relied upon by the counsel of the petitioners are hereby placed on reco rd as Annexure-X collectively. [12] I have heard and considered the submissions of the learned couns el for the parties. In this proceeding under Article 226 dealing with the exerci se of judicial review the court is not sitting upon the correctness or otherwise on merit of the decision taken by the authorities. However, the court is duty bound to examine the decision making process and if it has led to any denial of justice. [13] It is now well established that principles of natural justice i s too deeply rooted in the Indian scheme of jurisprudence, which need not be ela borated any further. It is well settled that if any order is passed prejudicial to the existing rights of a person, fair play and justice demand the minimum req uirement of giving a show-cause notice before passing such an order. Further, an y decision which adversely affects the rights of a person should also be informe d with reasons. In this regard, as has been noticed, the aforesaid cancellation order dated 24.3.06 was not preceded by any show-cause notice thereby clearly vi olating the rights of the petitioners to be heard. It is also seen from the afor esaid impugned order that no reason has been assigned by the authorities while passing the aforesaid cancellation order. Of course, the learned counsel appeari ng for the respondents have explained the reason for doing so by referring to t he affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.2, in which reason for the cancellation has been stated as indicated above in official letter No.FEC(II)61 /2005/59 dated 10.02.2006 (Annexure-C to the affidavit-in-opposition of the resp ondent No.2) where it has been stated that their regularisation has been cancel led for the fact that they were engaged after 1.4.93 and the reason for the sa id cancellation can be discernable in the aforesaid document. But, the fact rema ins that communication dated 10.02.2006 containing the reason for cancelling was never communicated to the petitioners. It may be also noted that in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner , (1970) 1 SCC 405, the Supreme Court has held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grou nds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be suppl emented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. That apart, it is also seen that in the aforesaid document dated 10.2.2006 (Annexure-C), nothing has been mentioned about the order passed by th is Court in earlier writ petition being C.R. No.140 of 1997 which mentioned abou t the appointment of the petitioners as muster roll workers w.e.f. 10.12.90. If the aforesaid fact had been considered or brought to the notice of the concerned authorities, perhaps, the authorities could have taken a different view of the matter. [14] Be that as it may, the fact remains that the aforesaid crucial d ocument i.e. the order passed by this Court in C.R. No.140 of 1997, which menti oned about the appointment of the petitioners on muster roll basis w.e.f. 10.12. 90 was not considered, which in the opinion of the court is a material document which ought to have been considered by the authority concerned before they took the aforesaid decision to cancel the regularization order of the petitioners. In other words, the competent authority had not considered a relevant factor while taking recourse to issuing of the cancellation order, which in the opinion of the Court would amount to non-application of mind and therefore, on this count a lso, the decision of the authorities in issuing the cancellation order can be fa ulted with for non-compliance of the fair procedure. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the authorities have failed to comply with the basic minimum requirements of the principles of n atural justice and also have failed to take into consideration all the relevant factors before the authorities could reach any decision which adversely affected the rights of the petitioners. Accordingly, the aforesaid cancellation order da ted 24.3.2006 vide office No.506 issued by the Executive Engineer (PHE), Hojai Division, Hojai, respondent No.4, is liable to be set aside. However, it is also made clear that the respondents would be at liberty to take such actions as it may think fit necessary and appropriate in the case, by taking into considerat ion all the relevant factors before they take any such decision. [15] It has been stated by the counsel of the petitioners that the pe titioners have not been paid their salaries w.e.f. 1.3.06 to 28.2.2010. The res pondents will look into the matter as regards the non-payment of salaries of the petitioners along with other admissible arrears payable to them and the current salaries at the earliest preferably within a period of three months and make n ecessary payment to the petitioners. [16] Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to co sts.