1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.153 of 2001 Date of decision 1.9.2008 Kashmir Singh Rana …. Petitioner Vs. Union of India & others ..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1 Mr.Ravinder Thakur, Central Government Standing Counsel For the Respondent No. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate 2 & 3. General with Mr. P.K. Negi, Dy.AG For the Respondent No. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. 4. Per R.B. Misra, J (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 5.3.2001 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal in MA No. 278 of 2001 preferred in OA No. 1050/HP/2000, pending before Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby the petitioner’s application for impleading him as necessary party-respondent No.4, has been declined. It appears that the petitioner is a senior officer of the State of HP, Department of Home and is working in the cadre of I.P.S, 1 Whether reporter of local papers are allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2 has made representation dated 30.12.1998 ( Annexure PA) before Union of India. In reference thereto, the Union of India, department of Home, vide letter dated 28.7.2000 ( Annexure PB) has communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of H.P about the disposal of representation dated 30.12.1998 of the petitioner. Consequent upon the indications made in the said letter dated 28.7.2000, a notification dated 1st November, 2000 ( Annexure PC ) was issued by the Chief Secretary, Govt of HP. Another order dated 6.12.2000 ( Annexure PD) was also issued by the Government of H.P; Respondent No.4, being aggrieved by the order dated 28.7.2000 (Annexure PB), order dated 1.11.2000 (Annexure PC) and order dated 6.12.2000 (Annexure PD) has preferred OA No. 1050/HP/2000 before Central Administrative Tribunal. During pendency and adjudication of the above mentioned OA, the petitioner by virtue of having been named in the impugned order dated 1.11.2000 and by virtue of the said order having been issued at his instance prayed to be included as necessary party/respondent in the above noted OA. However, the Central Administrative Tribunal by a non speaking order dated 5.3.201 has declined to accept the prayer of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has present the present writ petition. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Without expressing anything on the merits of the case, we find that since at the instance of the petitioner, order dated 28.7.2000 (Annexure PB) was passed by Union of India and in that reference, notification dated 1.11.2000 ( Annexure PC) was passed by the State of HP endorsing a copy of the same to the petitioner. Since the petitioner was named in the above said order and the impugned order dated 5.3.2001 has been passed without recording any reason, therefore, in the interest of justice 3 and for proper adjudication of the OA No. 1050/HP/2000 and in order to avoid probable multiplicity of litigation, the participation of the petitioner is necessary. We are of the considered view that the order dated 5.3.2001, being not legally sustainable, is set aside and respondent No.5 is directed to allow the impleadment of the present petitioner as one of respondent in pending OA No. 1050/HP/2000 so that the petitioner may be allowed to make his submission and may take his own stand before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The OA No. 1050/HP/2000 has to be adjudicated on its own merits being unaffected by observation of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost. In view of the disposal of the main writ petition, the application, if any is also disposed of. ( R.B. Misra ), J. ( Surjit Singh ), J. 1st September, 2008 (sl)