IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 8896 of 2008. Decided on: 17th December, 2010. Jeewan Lakshmi Kukreja. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For respondent No. 1. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No. 2. : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner has been imposed penalty of removal from service by the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation vide office order dated 8th October, 2001(Annexure A-1). However, the petitioner could not prefer any appeal against the same due to the reasons beyond her control. 2. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to prefer an appeal against office order dated 8th October, 2001 within a period of three weeks from today. Thereafter, the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation shall decide the same by passing a speaking order, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The petitioner shall also be heard in person. The Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation, while deciding the appeal 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - to be preferred by the petitioner, shall also take into consideration that the petitioner could not resume her duties due to maternity leave. 3. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge November 17, 2010. (bhupender) - 3 -