IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 919 of 2001. Date of Decision: 12.3.2008 _______________________________________________________________ H.P. Housing Board …Petitioner Versus Kultar Singh … Respondent. _______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner (s): Mr. Chandar Narain Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate. _______________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 27.4.2001 passed by the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in OA(D) No. 102/99. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the original applicant (respondent herein), filed an Original Application before the learned Tribunal claiming equal pay for equal work w.e.f. 24.12.1997 the date when he was regularized and appointed as Mortar Mate. The respondent was an employee of then HP Housing Board which has now been re-named as H.P.Urban Development Authority (for short: HIMUDA). - 2 - The H.P. Housing Board was a body created under the H.P Housing Board Act having its own juristic entity. The Board had its own seal and succession and had to be sued in its own name. In the Original application, the memo of parties is shown as under:- “Shri Kultar Singh son of Shri Lachhman Singh, resident of V &PO Rajol, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, at present working as Mortar Mate in the office of H.P. Housing Board, Sub Division, Dharamsala, District Kangra, H.P. ……Applicant Vs. 1. The State of Himachal Pradesh, through Secretary-cum- Chief Engineer, Himachal Pradesh, Housing Board, Nigam Bihar, Shimla 171002. 2. The Executive Engineer, Himachal Pradesh Housing Board, Dharamsala, Division Chilgari (Dharamsala), District Kangra, …Respondents.” The respondent No.1 H.P. Housing Board had not been properly sued in the OA. As already pointed out above, the H.P. Housing Board has a separate juristic entity and the State of H.P. could not have been sued through the Secretary-cum- Chief Engineer, H.P. Housing Board. The description of respondent No.1 was totally incorrect. In view of the incorrect description, it appears that notice on behalf of respondent No.1 was waived by the office of Advocate General. Notice appears to have been given to respondent No.2 who filed the reply. Unfortunately, in the reply filed on behalf of the H.P. Housing Board, the Cause Title was shown as follows:- Kultlar Singh ….. Applicant. H.P. Housing Board and another …. Respondents.” - 3 - Admittedly, a copy of this reply was handed over to the learned counsel for the original applicant. However, it appears that the Registry of the Tribunal did not place the reply on record of the case since the cause title was not in accordance with the cause title given by the original applicant in his application. It is obvious that the entire confusion has been caused by the original applicant himself who has given a totally wrong and incorrect description of respondent No.1- HP Housing Board. Due to this wrong description, the H.P. Housing Board was not properly sued nor was it properly served. Even though reply prepared on behalf of the H.P. Housing Board was filed but the same was not placed on the record due to the wrong title mentioned in the reply. Therefore, in our view, the petitioner -H.P. Housing Board has not been given proper opportunity to defend the matter. Therefore, without going into the merits of the rival contentions of the parties in regard to the merits of the case, we allow this writ petition and set aside the order of the learned Tribunal dated 27.4.2001. Since we have allowed the writ petition only on the ground that the petitioner - Board was not given proper opportunity to defend the matter, we are not saying anything on the merits of the case. The matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal who shall decide the Original Application afresh. The respondent (Original Applicant) is directed to apply to the learned Tribunal for amending the Cause Title to correctly reflect the body whom he chooses to sue and implead in the case. The petitioner – - 4 - Board shall be given adequate and reasonable opportunity to contest the Original Application. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. March 12, 2008. ( Rajiv Sharma ),J. s. - 5 -