IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.: 7626 of 2008. Decided on: 29.5.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Bhupender Kumar Sharma & others. … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2. : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, A.A.G. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. ______________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petitioners were regularized as Clerks on the basis of office order dated 24.4.1998. They made representation to the Director, Rural Development Department on 12.6.1999 for giving them the benefit of regularization from the date they had completed ten years. The representation made by the petitioners was accepted and they were regularized with effect from 1.4.1996 vide office order dated 14.9.1999. It appears that few employees who were aggrieved by the issuance of Annexure A-3 made representations to the respondents. The matter was referred by the department to the Department of Personnel. The Department of Personnel advised them on 13.2.2001 that the regularization shall be from prospective effect i.e. from the date of order of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 regularization are issued after completing all codal formalities. Consequently, the impugned order Annexure A-4 dated 28.2.2001 was issued. The petitioners filed representation against the issuance of Annexure A-4 vide Annexure A-5. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta has strenuously argued that the petitioners were liable to be regularized with effect from 1.4.1996 immediately after the completion of ten years. He then contended that the respondents without issuing any show cause notice to his clients had altered the date of regularization from 24.4.1998 to 1.4.1996. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General and Mr. Dilip Sharma had contended that the petitioners were liable to be regularized with effect from 24.4.1998 and not with effect from 1.4.1996. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. A conscience decision has been taken by the State to regularize the petitioners vide Annexure A-1 on 24.4.1998. The representations made by the petitioners seeking regularization with effect from 1.4.1996 was accepted which led to the issuance of Annexure A-3/A. The petitioners were regularized with effect from 1.4.1996. However, on the basis of Annexure A-4, the petitioners were regularized with effect from 24.4.1998 instead of 1.4.1996. The petitioners were not heard before the issuance of impugned order. The petitioners were visited with severe civil and evil consequences. They were deprived of the seniority by two years. A valuable right was taken away after the issuance of Annexure A- 3 4. They were liable to be heard before the issuance of Annexure A- 4 dated 28.2.2001. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in Rajesh Kumar and others versus Dy. CIT and others, 2007 (2) SCC 181 that when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. Their Lordships have held as under: “26. Effect of civil consequences arising out of determination of lis under a statute is stated in State of Orissa v.Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. (1967 (2) SCR 625). It is an authority for the proposition when by reason of an action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down in this behalf compliance of principles of natural justice would be implicit. In case of denial of principles of natural justice in a statute, the same may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.” Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure A-4 dated 28.2.2001 is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-State to issue show cause notice to the parties and thereafter, to pass appropriate orders. The petitioners shall also be heard in person along with private respondents. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 29, 2009. (cr) 4