IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No.60 of 2007 Dharam Pal Singh …… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …Respondent Dated: November 26, 2009 Coram: Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, ACJ. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, ACJ. (Oral) Heard Sri Pooran Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.C. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the respondents. The petitioner was appointed on a contract basis in the year 2001. His services were regularized by an order dated 26.2.2002. But subsequently, after expiry of more than six months, the respondents, by an order dated 1.11.2002, cancelled the order of regularization and subsequently passed an order of termination dated 13.3.2003. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed a writ petition questioning the order-dated 1.11.2002 by which the order of regularization was cancelled and also challenged the order dated 13.3.2003 by which his services were terminated. The writ court applying the principles of decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi; (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 01, held that a contractual worker was not entitled to be regularized or to be absorbed in the regular cadre and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. A review application was filed which was also dismissed. Consequently, the petitioner preferred this intra court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court. The Court finds that the learned Single Judge has not considered the validity and legality of the order dated 1.11.2002 by which the order of regularization was cancelled. The learned Single Judge has not addressed itself the question as to whether the said order was passed in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Once a person is absorbed in the service, whether legally or illegally, certain rights and benefits gets fastened upon the incumbent and in the eventuality, the respondents finds that the order of regularization was not in accordance with the Rules and Regulations, it was open to them to withdraw the said order, but before doing so, it was imperative and necessary for the respondents to comply with the provisions of natural justice i.e. to issue a notice to the petitioner. In the present case, we find that no such notice was issued to the writ petition by the respondents before canceling the order of regularization dated 26.2.2002. This Court further finds that a similarly situated person working on a contract basis, whose services were regularized and whose regularization was cancelled, filed a Writ Petition No.39 (S/B) of 2003, Indra Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, which was allowed by a judgment dated 27.4.2007. This judgment has been implemented by the respondents pursuant to which the said Indra Singh was taken back in service and now has been regularized. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the similar treatment should also be given to the petitioner/appellant. Since the order of regularization was cancelled by the respondents without issuing a show cause notice and without assigning any reason, we find that the impugned orders passed by the respondents cannot be sustained. The learned Single Judge without considering this aspect of the matter has wrongly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (Supra). In the light of the aforesaid, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The special appeal is accordingly allowed. The writ petition is also allowed and the impugned orders dated 1.11.2002 and 13.3.2003 are set aside. It is open to the respondents to pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs. (Dharam Veer, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, ACJ.) 26.11.2009 Rdang