IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.450 of 2002 Date of decision:30th July, 2008. State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Swaroop Singh ..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners.: Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy.A.G. For the Respondent: Mr.Surinder Sharma, Advocate Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This petition by the State is directed against the order of the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated April 18, 2001 passed in O.A. (D) No.705 of 1999 whereby the O.A. filed by the respondent has been allowed and the State has been directed to count the period after the oral termination of the respondent-employee till his re- engagement for the purposes of seniority and regularization. From the documents annexed with the present petition it is apparent that the respondent had 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 earlier filed an Original Application No.1338 of 1990 challenging an order of termination alleged to have been passed against him in the year 1990. On 17.3.1993, an interim order was passed in M.A. No.1953 of 1992 in O.A. No.1338 of 1990 that the respondent be re-engaged in the same capacity and at the same station where he was employed previously. Admittedly, the respondent was engaged pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Tribunal. However, neither party has placed before us the final order passed in O.A. No.1338 of 1990. Thereafter, the respondent filed another O.A. being O.A. No.705 of 1999 in which he prayed that the period from his termination till his re-engagement should be counted for the purpose of seniority. In this petition, the respondent had made reference to the earlier O.A. No.1338 of 1990 filed by him. We fail to understand how the Tribunal could have granted the relief in the present case in the absence of any material before the Tribunal as to what was final order passed in the earlier O.A. Without giving any finding as to whether the earlier dis-engagement of the respondent was illegal or not the Tribunal has straight- way directed that the period between the earlier dis- engagement and re-engagement be counted for seniority. This order could not have been passed by the learned 3 Tribunal especially when the respondent had not placed on record final order passed in O.A. No.1338 of 1990. In view of the above discussion, we find that the order of the Tribunal is a totally unreasoned order. We accordingly set-aside the same. We have been informed that the respondent after the interim order has continued in service and has also been regularized. If that be so, no orders adverse to the respondent shall be passed on the basis of the present judgment. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. July 30, 2008 ( V. K. Ahuja ), J. PV