IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6598 of 2008 with CWP(T) No. 11267 of 2008 Decided on: 08.09.2010 CWP (T) No. 6598/2008 and CWP (T) No. 11267/2008 Bharti Kuthiala …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No CWP(T) No. 6598 of 2008 For the Petitioner Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents. Mr. P. M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 3. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. CWP(T) No. 11267 of 2008 For the Petitioner Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents. Mr. P. M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. None for respondent No. 4. ___________________________________________________________ 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, the same are taken up together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Petitioner was appointed as a Secretary in Notified Area Committee, Dhalli (Shimla) vide appointment letter dated 18.8.1992. In the month of January/February, 1997, State Government took a decision for inclusion of 59 villages/part of villages, including existing areas of Nagar Panchayat, Dhalli, within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Shimla. Necessary notification to this effect was issued on 27.2.1997 for abolition of Nagar Panchayat, Dhalli and all assets and liabilities of abolished Nagar Panchayat, Dhalli were ordered to be transferred and vested with Municipal Corporation, Shimla with immediate effect. Thereafter vide office order dated 26.3.1997, the petitioner including other officials were permitted to continue to discharge their day-to-day duties. 3. Section 423 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 reads thus: "423. (1) When any municipality including area comprising rural area or a part thereof, if any, is declared and constituted a Corporation under sections 3 and 4 of this Act, the entire officers and employees serving in a municipality including area comprising rural area or a part thereof, if any, on a post in relation to which the Corporation is constituted, shall, on the declaration and constitution of a Corporation, be deemed to be transferred to the Corporation on the existing terms of service and integrated into the corresponding municipal service. (2) The Corporation may recruit additional staff where necessary subject to the conditions as may be laid down by the Government. (3) In making appointment to any post referred to in this section, the appointing authority shall follow the instructions issued by the Government from time to time in relation to reservation of appointment or post for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and other category of persons." 4. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that neither section 423 of the Act nor the terms and conditions enumerated/incorporated in Annexure A-3 have been taken into consideration. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, Principal Secretary (UD) is directed to be considered the case of the petitioner strictly as per section 423 of the Act read with terms and conditions enumerated/incorporated in Annexure A-3 dated 26.3.1997. 5. With these observations/directions, both the petitions are disposed of. There shall, however, be no order to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge September 8, 2010 *awasthi*