IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.334 of 2008. Date of decision:1.4.2010. State of H.P. & Others … … Petitioners Versus Ranbir Singh … … Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr.Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The State is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned State Administrative Tribunal setting aside the order dated 19.6.1996, Annexure A-1/1, whereby seniority granted to the respondent and regularizing him against the lower post has been cancelled. Prior to the issuance of this order, another order has been issued by the State where he was appointed as work charged supervisor. 2. One of the grounds taken before the Tribunal was that no notice had been issued to the respondent, the order was passed on its own and the same was 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 therefore in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. In reply an averment has been made that the notice had been issued but there was no material which has been placed before the Tribunal to show that actually notice was issued. The learned Tribunal holds: “It is not in dispute but is further clear from the material placed on record particularly Annexure-RA that the applicant completed 10 years continuous service with requisite number of days in each calendar year on December 31, 1994. Thus, on this count he became entitled for grant of work charged status in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhayaya and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (1994(2) SLR 377) reaffirmed in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Gehar Singh (Civil Appeal No.1037 of 2007 decided on February 27, 2007) w.e.f. January 1, 1995. The controversy is as to whether the applicant was rightly given the work charged status as a Supervisor or he was not entitled for such status, therefore, his appointment as work charged Supervisor has rightly been cancelled. A perusal of Annexure-Ra reveals that since September 1985 the applicant had continuously worked as a Supervisor till the end of the year 1994. Thus, more than half of the 10 years requisite service was rendered by the applicant as a Supervisor. In these circumstances, 3 in view of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Sohan Lal and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (CWP No.939/1996 decided on August 8, 1996) the applicant was entitled for grant of work charged status Supervisor w.e.f. January 1, 1995. Therefore, the impugned order Annexure-A-1/1 is bad in law and the earlier order Annexure-A/3 giving due appointment to the applicant as work charged Supervisor was valid.” 4. The judgment having been passed on the basis of the material on the record placed by the respondents themselves, we do not find any illegality in this order. This petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge. April 1, 2010. (Kuldip Singh) (aks) Judge.