JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 23rd July, 2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP (T) No.5152 of 2008, titled Shankar Lal vs. State of H.P. and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner (respondent herein) came to be allowed and Annexure A-3 was quashed, (for short, the impugned order). 2. At the very outset, we may reproduce the operative portion of the impugned judgment hereunder: “In view of the above, the petition is allowed, memo dated 25.3.1998 Annexure A-3 is quashed and respondents are directed not to take any action against the petitioner on the basis of memo dated 25.3.1998.” 3. Though the writ petitioner was regularized as work charged Fitter Grade-II w.e.f. 1.1.1994 and was confirmed against the said post w.e.f. 1st January, 1996, the writ respondents issued a notice, dated 25th March, 1998, (Annexure A-3 with the writ petition), calling upon the writ petitioner to exercise option as to whether he wanted to be regularized as Beldar w.e.f. 1.1.1994 or as Mechanic Grade-II w.e.f. 1.1.1999. However, the writ respondents never asked the petitioner whether he wanted to be regularized on the post against which he was working and was regularized i.e. Fitter Grade-II. 4. Mr.Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General, sought to argue that the writ petitioner was wrongly placed in the cadre of Fitter Grade-II and after noticing the said mistake, the Department had issued the notice Annexure A-3. However, a perusal of the notice Annexure A-3, as discussed supra, shows that there was nothing in the said notice that the writ petitioner was wrongly placed in the cadre of Fitter Grade-II, as submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General. Thus, the only inference, which can be drawn, is that the notice Annexure A-3 has been issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. 5. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the notice Annexure A-3. 6. Having said so, we deem it proper to dispose of the present appeal by providing that the writ respondents (appellants herein) are at liberty, if advised, to pass appropriate order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner (respondent herein), of course, as per the law applicable. Ordered accordingly. 7. 6. Having said so, we deem it proper to dispose of the present appeal by providing that the writ respondents (appellants herein) are at liberty, if advised, to pass appropriate order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner (respondent herein), of course, as per the law applicable. Ordered accordingly. 7. Pending CMPs, if any, also stand disposed of.