IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 5612 of 2008. [OA No.402 of 1998] Date of Decision: 29th July, 2010. _______________________________________________________ Shri Gurdev Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J. (Oral). The petitioner was granted work-charge status as Fitter Grade-II in Irrigation and Public Health Department vide office order dated 12th January, 1996 (Annexure P-1), on the completion of ten years continuous service with minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31st December, 1994 in the pay scale of Rs.950-35-1160-40-1320-45-1500-50- 1800 w.e.f. 1st January, 1995, inter alia subject to Condition No.6 that his service will be terminated in case any error in the seniority is notified at a later stage and in that case no claim will be entertained whatsoever that may be. 2. The petitioner accepted the offer and joined his duties as such. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 3. Later vide office order dated 17th November, 1998, respondent No.2-Superintending Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health Circle, Sundernagar informed the petitioner that he was not eligible to be appointed as work-charge Fitter Grade-II, but he was found eligible to be appointed as work-charge Beldar for the reason that his seniority erroneously was considered for regularization in the capacity as Fitter Grade-II, as reported by respondent No.3- Executive Engineer, IPH Division, Mandi. Thus as per Condition No.6 above, his services were terminated by withdrawing his appointment order and simultaneously respondent No.3-Executive Engineer was directed to issue the appointment order to the petitioner in the appropriate grade in view of the clarification received from Engineer-in- Chief, Shimla for his regularization in accordance with the Scheme framed by the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1994 (2) SLR 377. 4. From the record, it is apparent that while passing the aforesaid order vide Annexure P-2 the petitioner was not heard. He was virtually condemned unheard, thus the principle of natural justice stands violated. Therefore, office order No.SE-IPH-SNR-E-3-OA.222/98-13018-22 dated 17th November, 1998 (Annexure P-2) is indefeasible, as such quashed and set aside. 5. The petitioner was Fitter Grade-II at the time of filing of this petition. The impugned order dated 17th November, 1998 Annexure P-2 was stayed vide order dated 24th November, 1998 by the then Tribunal he kept on working as Fitter Grade-II in the Department of the respondents. Therefore, - 3 - the petitioner be given a chance to exercise his option within 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order by the respondents whether he should be granted the work charge status as a Beldar or as a Fitter on the completion of ten years in view of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Gauri Dutt v. State of H.P., reported in Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366 and decide the matter in view of his option, within two months. 6. The petition stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Copy DASTI on usual terms. July 29th, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)