IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1052 of 2006 Prakash Chandra Harbola ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and another …Respondents. Present : Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner was initially appointed as a clerk in a local body, namely, Notified Area Committee, Chamoli in the year 1982. Subsequently, in the year 1991, he was promoted to the post of Secretary of the said local body. This was done by the District Magistrate who at the relevant time was the Administrator of the said Notified Area Committee. Consequently vide order dated 26.12.1991 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) the Government of erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh approved the said promotion and provided the salary to the petitioner of the post of Secretary. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties as the Secretary of the said local body and continued to get the salary of the Secretary for as long as 15 years. All the same, in the year 2006, the Secretary of Urban Development, Government of Uttarakhand, reverted the petitioner to his original post i.e. the post of clerk. One of the principal contention of the petitioner is that the order dated 14.7.2006, by which he has been reverted from the post of Secretary to the post of clerk is in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner has been reduced in rank without an opportunity of hearing. The impugned order involves civil consequences as well. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the State Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht has, however, contended that the promotion of the petitioner in the year 1991 was not a regular promotion but only a stop gap arrangement. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner has continued for 15 years on the post of Secretary and got salary of that post as well. Certain rights therefore have accrued to the petitioner. Therefore, there is apparently a violation of the principle of natural justice and fairplay as an opportunity of hearing was denied to the petitioner. Admittedly, this opportunity of hearing has not been given to the petitioner. Consequently order dated 14.7.2006 passed by the Secretary, Urban Development, Dehradun (Annexure no. 8 to the writ petition) is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner as Secretary or the Executive Officer, as the case may be, with all consequential benefits. It is, however, made clear that the respondents are free to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner, in case the law so requires, but only after giving an opportunity of hearing to him. For the reasons as stated above, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 14.9.2011 Avneet