Allowed

Chandu Ram v. Hptdc

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Oct 2010CWPOA/16092/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner sought writ relief against an order withdrawing his service regularization without notice or hearing. The court quashed the withdrawal order for violating principles of natural justice and directed respondents to issue a show cause notice, afford a hearing, and decide the claim within two months.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 19.11.2007 quashed. Respondents directed to issue show cause notice, afford hearing, and decide claim within two months.

Chandu Ram Vs Hptdc — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2010)

¶1

CWP(T) No. 16092 of 2008

¶2

6.10.2010 Present:- Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner.

¶3

Mr. Naresh Kaul, counsel for the respondent.

¶4

Petitioner’s services were regularized in terms of order dated 22.9.2007. However, this order was subsequently withdrawn vide order dated 19.11.2007. Consequently, petitioner filed the instant petition.

¶5

In this petition, on 27.11.2007 following order was

¶6

passed:-

¶7

“Heard.

¶8

Notice. Mrs. Ranjna Parmar, Advocate appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents, hence, such notice need not be issued to these respondents. Reply be filed within four weeks. List thereafter.

¶9

The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that impugned order dated November 19, 2007 Annexure A-2 has been issued without any show cause notice and without affording any opportunity of being heard.

¶10

In view of this operation of impugned order dated November 19, 2007 Annexure A-2 is stayed till further orders.

¶11

Dasti copy.”

¶12

There is no dispute that this order is in continuation. It has resulted the order dated 22.9.2007 to be in operation even today.

¶13

Matter was heard for some time. There is no dispute that withdrawal of order dated 22.9.2007 entails civil

¶14

¶15

consequences. There is also no dispute that prior to issuance of office order dated 19.11.2007 no notice was ever issued to the petitioner or any opportunity of hearing afforded to him. Order also does not assign reason for withdrawal of benefits accorded to the petitioner. Consequently, order dated 19.11.2007 is quashed.

¶16

Respondents are directed to issue show cause notice and after affording adequate opportunity of hearing /representation to the petitioner decide the petitioner’s claim for regularisation. The decision be taken in accordance with law. Matter pertains to the year 2007. Consequently, respondents are directed to complete the proceedings within a period of two months from today.

¶17

In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of.

¶18

October 6, 2010

¶19

(GR)

¶20

( Sanjay Karol) Judge.

Chandu Ram v. Hptdc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandu Ram v. Hptdc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ran Bahadur Vs State

Vikram Dhawan Vs Hpu

Hardev Singh Vs Hpseb

Lata Devi Vs State

Satya Pal Sharma Vs State

Kishori Lal Vs Hpseb