1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 144 of 2010. Decided on: 13th December, 2011 Anil Kumar, S/o late Sh. Amar Lal, Offset-Overseer, H.P. Printing Press, Ghora Chowki, Shimla-5. …Appellant Versus 1. Suresh Bhickta, S/o late Shri J.L. Bhickta, at present Offset-Operator, Himachal Pradesh, Printing Press, Ghora Chowki, Shimla-5. 2. Shashi Vikrant, Lathe Artist, Art Wing, H.P. Printing Press, Ghora Chowki, Shimla-5. 3. Ramesh Kumar, Camera-Operator, Camra Wing, H.P. Printing Press, Ghora Chowki, Shimla-5. 4. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Secretary, H.P. Printing & Stationary Department, Shimla-2. 5. The Controller, Printing Press, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Ghora Chowki, Shimla-5. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R .B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant: Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate for the appellant. For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. No. 1 to 3. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional No. 4 & 5. Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. R.B.Misra, Judge (oral). The above mentioned Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 2.8.2010 passed by learned 2 Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 8674 of 208, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondents No. 1 to 3 was allowed and the appointment of the appellant as Offset Overseer was set aside. 2. On perusal of the record, it appears that the notice was issued to the appellant undertaking that the writ petition shall be listed for hearing on 19th August, 2010, however, the writ petition was taken up for hearing on 2nd August, 2010 and on that date appellant was directed to cease to work as Offset Overseer. Since the appellant herein could not get the opportunity to address and submit before learned Single Judge, in these circumstances, the order dated 2.8.2010, could be said to have passed behind the appellant as such the order dated 2.8.2010 is not legally sustainable, therefore, it is set aside and the writ petition is relegated back to the learned Single Judge to deal afresh on merits, after hearing the parties. The learned Single Judge is requested that the writ petition in question may be taken up and decided expeditiously. In view of the above, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. It will be open to the parties to mention the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for getting the writ petition listed before the learned Single Judge. (R.B.Misra) Judge. December 13, 2011 (Sanjay Karol) (krs) Judge.