IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1618 of 2010. Date of Decision: 17.3.2011. Smt. Seema Devi …Petitioner. Versus. State of HP & Ors. … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. R.D. Kaundal, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. AG. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This case presents a rather unusual state of affairs. The petitioner, who was working as Part Time Water Carrier, was converted into a contingent paid employee in the year 2005. She filed writ petition in this Court being CWP No. 229 of 2010 in which she prayed for the grant of following relief:- “That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to promote the petitioner as regular Peon-cum-Chowkidar from the date the other similarly situated persons have been promoted as such in the year, 2008 with all the consequential benefits.” 2. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the Deputy Director of Higher Education to look into the representation of the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law within two months. A bare perusal of the prayer made in the writ petition and the representation shows that petitioner’s claim was that she should be appointed as regular Peon-cum-Chowkidar. This is what the respondent No. 2, Director of Higher Education was asked to look into. He could have accepted or rejected her prayer. But, the Director of Higher Education has gone further and directed that the services of the petitioner may be terminated. 3. The Director of Higher Education could not have ordered the termination of the services of the petitioner without issuing notice and without following the rules of natural justice. At this stage, this Court is not going into the question as to whether the services of the petitioner were properly taken over on contingent basis or not, but it is apparent that once an order is to be passed which may affect the rights of an employee, then such order cannot be passed without first giving the employee a notice and giving the employee a reasonable opportunity to put-forth his case Therefore, the impugned order Annexure P-3 has to be set aside on this short ground. The same is accordingly set aside. Liberty is, however, given to the State to take appropriate action after issuing notice to the petitioner and following the procedure prescribed under law. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 17th March, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (Krn Guleria) Judge.