IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 7462 of 2008. Decided on: 23.06.2010. __________________________________________________________ Kartar Singh. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that the respondents have refused to reimburse a sum of Rs.19,800/- to the petitioner for availing L.T.C. facility. The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide Annexure A-9 on 15th September, 2001. It is a non- speaking order. It is well settled that any administrative order which has civil consequences must be reasoned and detailed. According to the petitioner his case was required to be looked into by the respondents as per Rule 12 of the Central Civil Services (LTC) Rules and Rule 116(II) of the Supplementary Rules as also Rule 73 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 since instructions issued by the State Government on 28th December, 1998 (Annexure R-3) are inapplicable in his case. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 2. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure A-9, dated 15.9.2001 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for reimbursement of a sum of Rs.19,800/- strictly as per observations made hereinabove. There will be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. June 23, 2010. (sck).