IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 717 of 2006. Date of decision: 1.8.2009 Nagar Panchayat, Sarkaghat …. Petitioner Versus Sh.Rasheel Chand & anr. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.R.M.Bisht, Dy.Advocate General, for the respondent No.2. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the learned H.P Administrative Tribunal dated 8th March, 2006 allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent and directing the Nagar Panchayat, Sarkaghat to grant work charge status to the petitioner on completion of ten years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year within six months. The Nagar Panchayat was also directed to pay arrears as a consequence of the aforesaid order. Sh.Ajay Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this order has been passed without even issuing notice to the Nagar Panchayat, Sarkaghat. We find from the record that the presence is marked of the counsel of the original applicant as well as Sh.D.C.Pathik, Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State. It is obvious that no notice was ever sent to the Nagar Panchayat and none was present on its behalf. On this ground alone, the order has to be set aside. Furthermore, the question whether the judgment of the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others 1994(2) SLR 377 is applicable in the case of a Nagar Panchayat or not is still to be decided by this Court. It has been urged by Sh.Neel Kamal Sharma appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 that during the pendency of the writ petition, the services of the respondent have been regularized by the Nagar Panchayat w.e.f. 30th July, 2007 and he joined as such on 1st August, 2007. In view of the above discussion, we find that the order of the learned Tribunal which had been passed without issuing notice to the Nagar Panchayat cannot be sustained. This order is accordingly set aside. However, while setting aside the order of the Tribunal, we may clarify that the regularization of the petitioner shall not in any manner be affected by this judgment. The respondent shall be continued to be treated as regular employee w.e.f. 1st August, 2007 but shall not be entitled to any arrears prior to the said date. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge September 1, 2009 (V.K.Ahuja) (m) Judge