IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 9554 of 2008 (OA No.2154 of 2003). Date of decision: 26.4.2010. Mohinder Singh …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & anr. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Rita Goswami, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. A.G. and Mrs. Subh Mahajan, Dy. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is a petition for quashing of notice dated 21.7.2003 Annexure A-2, terminating the services of the petitioner with further direction to respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on completion of his seven years of service as per policy of the State Government pertaining to regularization of daily wagers. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is under Matriculate and was initially engaged as Chain Man in the respondent department vide office order dated 14.7.1997 Annexure A-1 and he joined as such on 25.7.1997. The initial engagement of the petitioner was only for 89 days but thereafter he continued in the department as Chain Man. The petitioner had completed six years of service w.e.f. 25.7.1997 and as per the policy of the State Government, he Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… was entitled for regularization on completion of seven years of service. In order to frustrate the benefit of regularization of service to the petitioner, the services of the petitioner were terminated by respondent No. 2 vide notice dated 21.7.2003 w.e.f. 31.7.2003 Annexure A-2. It has been submitted that notice dated 21.7.2003 is arbitrary. There is no justification in terminating the services of the petitioner. The notice terminating the services of the petitioner is malafide. Suresh Kumar a junior to petitioner has been retained in service. The principle of first come last go has not been applied. The notice is against the principle of natural justice. 3. The respondents No. 1 & 2 have filed reply wherein they have stated that petitioner was engaged when the settlement work was in progress. Now the applicant and other similar persons are not required to continue due to non-availability of work, funds and sanction. They were rendered surplus and disengagement order of petitioner by notice dated 21.7.2003 is legal. The notice dated 21.7.2003 terminating the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.7.2003 is sufficient notice in accordance with law. It has been submitted that the services of the petitioner were terminated rightly. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was engaged vide office order dated 17.7.1997 Annexure A-1. He joined on 25.7.1997. This has not been denied by the respondents. The petitioner continued to work with the respondents after his initial engagement of 89 days as per Annexure A-1. The services of the petitioner were abruptly terminated vide office order dated 21.7.2003 Annexure A-2. The petitioner was workman, which …3… has not been denied. In these circumstances, the engagement of petitioner was to be regulated by Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act). The notice terminating the services of the petitioner dated 21.7.2003 Annexure A-2 is not inconformity with Section 25F of the Act. The respondents did not pay the retrenchment compensation to the petitioner nor they issued requisite notice to the petitioner. At the time of hearing of the petition, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General has submitted that as per his instructions given by Assistant Settlement Officer, Kangra Division at Dharamshala, there are nine posts of daily wage Chain Man lying vacant in the Division. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to work as daily-wage Chain Man in Kangra Division at Dharamshala. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Annexure A- 2 dated 21.7.2003 is quashed. The respondents are directed to re- engage the petitioner as daily wage Chain Man in Kangra Division at Dharamshala immediately. The petitioner shall be entitled to continuity of services and seniority as Chain Man but he shall not be entitled to back wages. The petition stands disposed of. Copy dasti. April 26, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.