IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 11869 of 2008 Decided on: 29.12.2010 T.D. Chauhan …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the petitioner : Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No. 1 and 2. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. _______________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : Petitioner has made a representation for the redressal of his grievance, however, the same has been rejected by the Engineer- in-Chief vide order dated 22.2.2005. without passing a speaking/detailed order. Once the representation has been made by the petitioner, it ought to have been considered and decided in view of the existing position prevailing with regard to seniority. 2. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-1, dated 22.5.2005 is quashed and set aside. There shall be a direction to the Engineer-in-Chief to decide the representation made by the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No -2- petitioner in accordance with law and as per existing position prevailing with regard to seniority, by passing a speaking/detailed/reasoned order, within a period of two months after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 29, 2010 (K. Attri)