1. By way of these petitions the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.09.2004 of the respondent whereby vide office orders no. 582 of 2004 and 583 of 2004 the petitioners were denied to be treated as 'Hangami' Tracers from the date of their appointment. The petitioners have also prayed to restore the office order no. 509 of 1998 and 655/2002 whereby the petitioners were treated as 'Hangami' as per the date of their appointment.
2. The case of the petitioners are that the petitioners were appointed as Work-Charge Tracers on 04.08.1979 and further they were appointed as 'Hangami' Tracers with the recommendations of Employment Exchange inspite of this the petitioners were stated as Work-Charge Tracer. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that if one is appointed as Work Charge, then till the retirement he remains as Work Charge. But if the appointment is 'Hangami' then the seniority and promotions are given to him. The petitioners were treated as 'Hangami' W.C. Tracer w.e.f 23.02.1982. The petitioners wrote a letter to the Suptd. Engineer Ahmedabad City (Road & Bldg.) Circle, Ahmedabad for treating them as 'Hangami' Tracers since date of their appointment. Ultimately vide office order no. 509/1998 the petitioners were treated as 'Hangami' from the date of their appointment. The petitioners wrote a letter dated 13.08.2002 voicing grievance that their name should be cited in the seniority list prior to the name of the employees who are junior to them. It is further submitted that despite vide order no. 582 and 583 of 2004 the petitioners were rejected to be treated as 'Hangami' Tracer from the date of their appointment.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the record. From the perusal of the impugned orders, it is very clear that before cancelling the earlier orders 509/1998 and 655/2002 at annexure-I of the petitions, the petitioners were not heard in any manner which is a violation of principles of natural justice and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. The respondents are required to follow due procedure of law before cancelling the earlier order.
4. Accordingly the impugned order dated 30.09.2004 is hereby set aside and quashed with no order as to costs. It is made clear that the this order has been quashed only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice because the petitioners were not heard at the time of passing such order.
5. Petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. This court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. It will be open for the petitioners to take action after following procedure, if it is permissible under law.
(K.S. Jhaveri, J.) Amar