IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 413 of 2010 Decided on: 23.03.2011 Rajinder Chauhan …. Petitioner Versus Ms. Harinder Hira .… Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge For the petitioner: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): The complaint is that Annexure C-2, judgment dated 13.12.2010 passed in the background also of Annexure C-1, interim order, has been flouted while passing Annexure C-3, order by the respondent. As per the judgment, this Court had issued the direction to the Government that in case, the appointment of the petitioner as Executive Director (Tariff and Finance Analysis) under the H.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, has been cleared by the Government, there should be no delay in relieving the petitioner. It was directed to relieve the petitioner within a week, “in case the Government’s decision still stands”. In view of the dispute as to whether the Government had taken the decision to relieve the petitioner or not, we have called for the files. It is seen from the files that the matter was dealt with at the level of the 2 Chief Minister, as routed through the Minister of Industries and the Government was not inclined to relieve the petitioner. It is seen from the files that in case the Commission still insisted that the petitioner should be deputed, the Government might consider the matter afresh. Be that as it may. What has been conveyed as per Annexure C-3 is the decision taken by the Government. Till such time, there was no decision as to whether the petitioner should be relieved or not. The only decision that is reflected in the order Annexure C-3 is the decision taken by the Government as referred above. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government having permitted the petitioner to apply for the post and the Commission having taken a decision in favour of the petitioner, it is only fair and proper that the petitioner is relieved. Merely, because the application is forwarded, it cannot be said that there is approval by the Government for relieving the petitioner for taking the appointment. That stage arises only, when the petitioner is selected and when he is sought to be relieved. At that time, the Government has considered all aspects of the matter and has taken the decision. No doubt, it would have been more appropriate, in case the petitioner had been conveyed the decision earlier. But, as already stated above, having gone through the files we find that the decision taken by the Government is not to relieve the petitioner and to the extent, indicated here-in-above. 3. In that view of the mater, we do not find any contumacious conduct on the part of the respondent. Therefore, this petition is hence dismissed. 3 4. We make it clear that in the view, we have taken above, it is not necessary to refer to the averments in the reply and it is also made clear that our order, as above, is only on the basis of the position, as reflected in the files. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Ahuja ), March 23, 2011 Judge (BSS/Pankaj)