IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 4626 of 2008. Decided on: 05.03.2010. __________________________________________________________ Hoshiar Singh. … Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector on 20th June, 1995. He was served with a memorandum dated 2nd August, 1997 whereby he was called upon to file reply within 15 days. The gist of the memorandum served upon the petitioner was that he has been erroneously promoted to the post of Inspector with effect from 20th June, 1995. He filed detailed reply to the same on 30th August, 1997. He filed the present petition against the memorandum dated 2nd August, 1997. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 20.10.1997 stayed the operation of Annexure A-1, dated 2nd August, 1997. The learned Tribunal further directed the respondents-Corporation not to revert the petitioner from the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - present post till further orders. The petitioner has retired during the pendency of this petition while holding the post of Inspector. Shri K.D. Shreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that issuance of Annexure A-1, dated 2nd August, 1997 is illegal, arbitrary, unjustifiable, thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He then contended that his client retained lien against the post of Conductor though he was appointed by way of transfer as Booking Clerk. Mr. Adharsh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that after the issuance of Annexure A-1, the final order was passed by the Corporation on 13th October, 1997. He then contended that the petitioner has not assailed this final order dated 13th October, 1997. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. A conscious decision has been taken by the Corporation to promote the petitioner to the post of Inspector. His case was duly recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The memorandum was served upon the petitioner on 2nd August, 1997. He filed the detailed reply as noticed above on 30th August, 1997. The petitioner approached the leaned H.P. Administrative Tribunal and interim order was granted in his favour on 20.10.1997. Mr. Adarsh Sharma submits that the final order was passed on 13th October, 1997. However, the fact of the matter is that the order dated 13th October, 1997 was not served upon the petitioner and in the meanwhile, the petitioner has obtained interim stay from the learned Administrative Tribunal. He has continuously discharged the duties of Inspector even after the order dated 13th October, 1997. He superannuated as Inspector. In normal - 3 - circumstances, the petitioner was required to challenge specifically order dated 13th October, 1997 during the pendency of this petition itself. However, the fact of the matter remains that the petitioner has been discharging the duties as Inspector on the basis of interim order dated 20th October, 1997. It was necessary for the Management to take steps to get the interim order modified. The Corporation has not taken any steps to do so. In fact, order dated 13th October, 1997, for the first time has been placed on record by the Corporation by way of CMP(T)No.572 of 2009. A bare perusal of letter dated 13th October, 1997 reveals that the reply filed by the petitioner on 30th August, 1997 has not been taken into consideration at all. It was necessary for the Divisional Manager to discuss the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 2nd August, 1997. The order dated 13th October, 1997 is also non- speaking order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Letter dated 13th October, 1997 is declared bad in law being violative of the principles of natural justice. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as Inspector for all intents and purposes including for the release of retrial benefits. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 05, 2010. (sck).