IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7415 of 2010 Decided on: 28.09.2011 Narkali …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For respondents No.1&2 : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For respondent No.3 : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.4 : Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents, especially respondent No.3, in dispensing with her service as Mid-day Meal worker and retaining the respondent No.4 in service. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Mid-day Meal worker on 31.8.2004 alongwith one other person, namely, Daulat Ram, after draw of lots. Thereafter, 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -2- respondent No.4 was appointed as Helper in the Government Primary School, Drunu,Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, H.P. for the purpose of serving the Mid-day Meal on 28.2.2005. It is also not disputed that later the distinction between Mid-day Meal workers and Helpers was done away with and all were treated as Mid-day Meal workers. 3. In the year 2010, the State took a policy decision that there would be only one Mid-day Meal worker if the strength of the students is 25 or less. However, if the strength of students increases from 25 to 100 then another Helper can be hired. Therefore, either the services of the petitioner or the respondent had to be dispensed with. On 6th April, 2010, a meeting of the Village Education Committee took place and keeping in view the fact that either the service of the petitioner or respondent No.4 had to be dispensed with, it was resolved that the services would be dispensed with by draw of lots. It is alleged that even the petitioner consented to the same. Later on, a notification was issued in June, 2010 laying down the revised norms. It would be pertinent to mention that this notification in the first line itself states that the revised norms shall be effected w.e.f. 1.4.2010. In these norms, it was decided that principle of last come first go shall be followed while dispensing with the services of the surplus staff. If this notification is to be followed, then obviously the petitioner had to be retained in service. 4. Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submitted that in the present case the action had been -: 3 :- completed much prior to the issuance of the notification in June, 2010 and the notification could not be given retrospective effect so as to take away the vested rights of respondent No.4. In my view, this contention of Mr. Kanwar can not be accepted. The reason is that the Village Education Committee also did not follow any norms, but only by draw of lots dispensed with the services of the petitioner. Now, the norms have laid down a tangible formula of dispensing with the services and the formula is last come first go. This is a formula well recognized in service jurisprudence and especially in industrial law. This is a formula which is equitable to all and this Court in number of judgments including CWP No.3599/2010 decided on 23.11.2010 titled Rajo Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others, has held that the principle of last come first go must be followed. 5. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and respondents/ State is directed to re-engage the petitioner in service and to dispense with the services of respondent No.4, if not required. However, in case the strength of the students increases from 25, then the service of respondent No.4 shall also be taken. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge 28th September, 2011 k.sharma