IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 13766 of 2008. Date of decision: 23.05.2011. _______________________________________________________ Kamla Devi. ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P.& Ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan,Advocate, vice Mr.Y.W.Chauhan,Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl.A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana,Asstt.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) It is not necessary to give facts of the case in detail inasmuch as, according to petitioner, the present case is completely covered by judgment dated 23.02.2011 passed by a co-ordinate Bench in CWP(T) No. 13724 of 2008. The factum of order dated 23.02.2011 in CWP(T) No. 13724 of 2008 has not been denied by the other side. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier and, later on, promoted as Whole Time Contingent Employee on 07.03.2005. One Puran Chand filed OA No. 1716 of 2005 before the erstwhile Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 12.07.2005 ordered that the original application filed by the said Shri Puran Chand be treated as representation. In Office Order dated 13.04.2006 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 Annexure A-1 reference of petition filed by Shri Puran Chand has been given. It appears respondent No.3 while considering the representation of Shri Puran Chand without hearing or issuing notice to the petitioner passed Office Order dated 13.04.2006. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in CWP(T) No. 13724 of 2008 exactly similar were the facts. The order dated 23.02.2011 in CWP(T) No. 13724 of 2008 is as follows:- “Petitioner was promoted to the post of Whole Time Contingent Paid Employee vide office order dated 07.03.2005. However, the same has been withdrawn vide office order dated 13.04.2006. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of orders dated 13.04.2006 (Annexures A-1 and A-2). Petitioner could not be reverted from the higher post without hearing him, rather it amounts to reversion. 2. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another Versus Narendra Singh (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 750 have held as under: “34. True it is that before such an action is taken and a person is actually reverted, he must be given an opportunity to show cause why the proposed action should not be taken. He may be able to satisfy the authorities that there was no such mistake. But even otherwise, principles of natural justice and fair play require give of such opportunity to him. But as observed earlier, in the instant case, in accordance with Rule 31-A of the Fundamental Rules, notice was issued to the respondent employee, explanation was sought and thereafter the order was passed. The said order, in our considered view, was just, proper and in consonance with law and it ought not to have been set aside by the Tribunal or by the High Court. To that extent, therefore, the orders impugned in this appeal deserve to be set aside.” 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexures A-1 and A-2, 3 dated 13.04.2006 are quashed and set aside. The consequences shall ensue. No costs.” 3. The respondents on 22.03.2011 were given three weeks to file their reply and it was observed that in case reply was not filed then it would be presumed that the respondents-State does not controvert the factual allegations made in the petition. No reply has been filed. It is clear that the petitioner was demoted without following due process of law and violating the principle of natural justice vide order dated 13.04.2006. Accordingly, Office order dated 13.04.2006 Annexure A-1 and Office Order Annexure A-2 dated 09.05.2006 to the extent they relate to the petitioner are not sustainable and they are accordingly quashed with all consequential benefits. The petition stands disposed of. May 23, 2011 (Kuldip Singh), ( krt) Judge.