1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 7400 of 2008 Date of decision: 3.8.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Jagroop Singh Guleria .....Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. .....Respondent. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers:- “(i) That the impugned orders dated 26.12.2000 vide Annexure A-8 reverting the applicant from the post of BPEO to the post of CHT even after his retirement from service on 31.10.2000, may kindly be quashed and set- aside. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to treat the applicant who have retire from service on 31.10.2000 in the capacity of BPEO for all intends and purposes forthwith. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to fix the pay of the applicant as BPEO at Rs.10940/- (instead of Rs.10300/-) as per F.R. 22 and to pay the arrears of salary till his retirement on 31.10.2K. (iv) That the respondents may be directed to fix/re-fix 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 the pension, commuted pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other admissible retiral benefits, by calculating the basis pay of the applicant as BPEO at Rs.10940/-, in case the applicant is given retiral benefits at the less basic pay of Rs.10300/- by the respondents, during the pendency of the OA, alongwith arrears of revised retiral benefits forthwith. (v) That the respondents may be directed to given interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment of salary as a BPEO @ the basic pay of Rs.10940/- and allowance for the period w.e.f. 1.5.2000 to 31.10.2000 and the penal interest @ 21% per annum on the delayed payment of revised retiral benefits as mentioned in para(iv) above, forthwith.” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 3:- “Para-3 That in reply to this para it is submitted that as per the seniority list of JBT Teacher the applicant was senior to Shri Sukh Dev, Gopal Dass and Nikki Chand, but he has became much junior to these teachers in the seniority of head Teacher and Centre head Teacher respectively. As the applicant was promoted as Head Teacher on 7.12.87 but the applicant did not join his duties as Head Teacher. This fact is also admitted by the applicant in para 6(iii) of the original application. Due to non joining, the duties as Head Teacher the applicant has been debarred from promotion for a period of 5 years. But as per the information received from the respondent No.3 District Primary Education Officer Kangra at Dharamshala, that when the fact regarding the wrong promotion of the applicant as Block Primary Eduction officer came into the notice, he informed the replying respondent. On, the receipt of this information the replying respondent vide letter dated 26.12.2000 demoted the applicant. It is further submitted that in the promotion order of the applicant as block Primary 3 Education Officer dated 29.4.2000 it has been clearly mentioned that the promotion order will be treated as cancelled of the employee if found to be uneligible for promotion or any subsequent stage. The copy of the promotion order dated 25.4.2000 is also annexed and the same is marked is as annexure R-3. Therefore, in view of these facts the respondent has committed no wrong by demoting the applicant.” 3. Rejoinder refuting the above stand on behalf of the respondents and reiterating the averments set up in the petition has been filed. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner, who at the relevant time was working in the respondent-department as Centre Head Teacher(CHT), was promoted as Block Primary Education Officer(BPEO) vide order dated 29.4.2000, Annexure A-6. Thereafter, he retired from government service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.10.2000. It was thereafter that vide office order dated 26.12.2000, Annexure A-8 the promotion granted to the petitioner was withdrawn and it was ordered that he would be deemed to have retired as Centre Head Teacher on the ground stated in para-2 of Annexure A-8, which is extracted below:- “And whereas the District Primary Education officer, Kangra at Dharamsala, District Kangra on scrutiny of record found that said Shri Jagroop Singh was not eligible for promotion for the post of BPEO as his seniority No. is 554 in the seniority list of Centre Head Teachers and not 317-A as shown in the panel sent for the promotion of the block primary Education officers vide his letter No.EDN-KGR-(PE-I) Promotion /BPEO/2000-12019, dated 20-9-2K and 20-11-2K respectively.” 4 5. Indisputably, while issuing office order dated 26.12.2000, Annexure A-8, whereby the promotion earlier granted to the petitioner was withdrawn, no notice was issued to him. It being so, the order is in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice, as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Of India and another v. Narendra Singh, 2008(2) SCC 750, vide relevant portion of para-34 of the judgment, which is extracted below:- “34. True it is that before such an action is taken and a person is actually reverted, he must be given an opportunity to show cause why the proposed action should not be taken. He may be able to satisfy the authorities that there was no such mistake. But even otherwise, principles of natural justice and fair play require giving of such opportunity to him.” 6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and office order dated 26.12.2000, Annexure A-8 is quashed with liberty reserved to the respondents to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law, if so advised, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 7. The petition as also pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 3rd August 2011 (vt)