IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 55 of 2010. Decided on: 18th December, 2010. Sohan Lal-II. …Petitioner. -Versus- Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis vide order dated 01.08.1983 (Annexure-PB). He was appointed on regular basis w.e.f. 28.03.1984 vide order dated 07.05.1984 (Annexure-PC). He was put on probation for a period of two years and his services were liable to be dispensed with without further inquiry and the appointment could be terminated at any time by giving him one month’s notice/pay in lieu thereof by the appointing authority. The services of the petitioner were dispensed with vide office order dated 29.05.1985 (Annexure – PJ). Petitioner preferred an appeal, though to the Transport Minister-Cum-Chairman, Himachal Road Transport Corporation on 16.11.1990 (Annexure-PK). The same was not decided. Petitioner approached the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 1514 of 1991. The Original Application was directed to be treated as representation 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation on 24.09.1992. The same was rejected on 30.12.1992(Annexure- PA). However, fact of the matter is that petitioner has not been served with one month’s notice as per condition enumerated in his appointment letter Annexure-PC, dated 07.05.1984. 2. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexures- PD, PF, R-2 and R-3. These are only explanations and even vide Annexure R-2, the petitioner was called upon to file reply, failing which, action was to be taken against him. However, the petitioner has not been given one month’s notice, as stipulated in his appointment letter dated 07.05.1984 (Annexure –PC). 3. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure –PA, dated 30.12.1992 and Annexure –PJ, dated 29.05.1985 are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to all the consequential benefits. However, the respondent-Corporation is at liberty to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge November 18, 2010. (bhupender) - 3 -