Anu Bala Vs the Director Urban Development and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Anu Bala Vs the Director Urban Development and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 11.09.2020 passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 25.07.2020 (Annexure R-1) passed by respondent No.1 quashed and set aside; pending applications, if any, disposed of; no fresh order/action directed against the respondents.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents could legally convert the petitioner's regular appointment as Peon (office order dated 19.12.2016) to daily wage basis retrospectively w.e.f. 19.12.2016 by the impugned order dated 11.09.2020. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the petitioner had made no misrepresentation and, being the widow of the deceased employee, had been offered appointment on regular basis on the post of Peon, her order of appointment could not be altered to her disadvantage without issuing a show cause notice to her.

Ratio / Principle

There being no fault on the petitioner's part, and she having been paid the emoluments of the post of Peon on regular scale after the appointment order dated 19.12.2016, the respondents could not have passed the impugned order treating her as Peon on daily wage basis after a lapse of about more than 3 years and 8 months.

Key takeaways

Before passing any order which has civil consequences, the least expected of the employer is to issue a show cause notice to the person who is being affected.ratio¶29
As no notice was issued to the petitioner before the impugned order and there was no fault on her part in seeking appointment on regular basis, the impugned orders passed by the respondents cannot sustain in the eyes of law.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compassionate appointment — conversion of regular appointment to daily wage retrospectively — natural justice. Anu Bala, widow of a Class-IV Beldar who died in service on 04.11.2016, was appointed Peon on regular basis (pay-scale Rs.4900-10680+1400) vide office order dated 19.12.2016 (Annexure P-1). By office order dated 11.09.2020 (Annexure P-2), respondent No.2 treated her as Peon on daily wage basis w.e.f. 19.12.2016, ostensibly rectifying a 'bonafide mistake' said to be contrary to compassionate-appointment guidelines requiring daily-wage engagement for Class-IV posts. Held (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge): the petitioner had made no misrepresentation and there was no fault on her part; an order of appointment to a regular post cannot be altered to the employee's disadvantage without a show cause notice, since orders with civil consequences require prior notice; the retrospective conversion after about 3 years 8 months, during which she drew regular Peon emoluments, was unsustainable. The order dated 25.07.2020 (Annexure R-1) of respondent No.1 and the impugned order dated 11.09.2020 were quashed and set aside; no fresh order was directed, considering the post held and the lapse of more than five years. Petition allowed.

( 2026:HHC:10678 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWP No.3734 of 2020 Decided on: 06.04.2026

Anu Bala ...Petitioner

Versus

The Director, Urban Development and another

...Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner: Mr.Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Kaushal Mungta, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1.

Mr.Arhant Mahajan, Advocate vice Mr.Rahul Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the office order dated 11.09.2020(Annexure P-2), whereby the earlier office order dated 19.12.2016, appointing the petitioner as Peon on regular basis, was modified, by treating her as Peon, on daily wage basis w.e.f. 19.12.2016. 2. As per pleadings in the writ petition, the husband

of the petitioner was appointed on 01.07.1995 as Class-IV

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

( 2026:HHC:10678 )

2

Beldar on daily wage basis with the respondents, whose services were regularized on 21.08.2007. Later on, he was granted the status of Peon on 18.04.2016. However, he died on 04.11.2016, while in service.

The petitioner being the widow of deceased was offered appointment as Peon, vide office order dated 19.12.2016 (Annexure P-1), on regular basis in the pay-scale of Rs.4900-10680+1400. Later on, vide impugned order dated 11.09.2020, her services were converted/treated into daily wage basis w.e.f. 19.12.2016.

The petitioner has assailed the said decision of the respondents, whereby her services were brought on daily wage basis, on the ground that the said action is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. It has been averred that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner and further no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order, which was disadvantageous to the petitioner. The services of the petitioner have been illegally converted into daily wage basis retrospectively, without any fault on her part. Not only this, even the impugned order is non-speaking.

( 2026:HHC:10678 )

3

Respondent No.2 filed reply to the petition and averred that neither the petition is competent nor maintainable. It is also averred that the petitioner has concealed material facts from the Court and has not approached the Court with clean hands. The appointment on compassionate grounds was to be done in terms of the instructions/guidelines issued by the Director, Urban Development, Himachal Pradesh, which provides that in case of compassionate appointment in the category of Class-IV post, the person to be appointed on compassionate appointment, will be appointed on daily wage basis and not on regular basis. Inadvertently, due to mis-construing the instructions/guidelines of the Director, Urban Development, Himachal Pradesh and the Finance Department, the petitioner was appointed as Peon on regular basis. Since it was bonafide mistake committed by the respondents, the same could be rectified and thus the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis has been treated as on daily wage basis.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully.

( 2026:HHC:10678 )

4

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been offered appointment on regular basis, vide office order dated 19.12.2016, immediately after the death of her husband on 04.11.2026. It is also not in dispute that at the time of offering appointment to the petitioner, she did not make any mis-representation. It is also not in dispute thatno prior notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 11.09.2020.Even the office order dated 25.07.2020 passed by respondent No.1 was not conveyed to the petitioner. Once the petitioner had not made any misrepresentation and further she being the widow of deceased employee, was offered appointment on regular basis, that too, on the post of Peon, the said order of appointment as Peon could not have been altered to her disadvantage, that too, without issuing any show cause notice to her. Not only this, after passing theorder of offering appointment to the petitioner on 19.12.2016, she was being paid the emoluments of the post of Peon on regular scale. Therefore, the respondents could not have passed the impugned order to treat her as Peon on daily wage basis after lapse of about more than 3 years and 8 months.

( 2026:HHC:10678 )

5

It is settled law that before passing any order, which has evil/civil consequences, the least which is expected of the employer is to issue show cause notice to the person, who is being affected. In the present case, no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and further once there was no fault on the part of the petitioner to seek appointment on regular basis, the impugned orders passed by the respondents cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.09.2020, passed by respondent No.2 as well as order dated 25.07.2020 (Annexure R-1) passed by respondent No.1, are quashed and set aside. This Court could have given liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner, but keeping in view the post held by the petitioner and also the fact that more than five years have lapsed, no action is required to be taken by the respondents.

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any.

( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 6^th April, 2026 Judge (naveen)

( 2026:HHC:10678 )

6