1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. C.W.P(T) No. 9031 of 2008 Date of Decision: 7th May, 2011. Raghuveer Singh. …..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P.& others. …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr. G.R Palsara, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). Vide memorandum dated 8-7-1998 Annexure PE, petitioner was offered with an opportunity to make a representation, as to why the proposed pay scale be not granted to him. As per proposed action, there is revision in the pay scale. Petitioner respond to the same by making representation Annexure PF, PG and PH. 2. According to Mr. G.R Palsara, counsel for the petitioner, no action has been taken by the respondent there upon. 3. In view of same, there is direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner’s representation Annexure P-E , PG and PH within a period of two months from the date receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 4. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to place additional material in his favour before the appropriate authorities. Needless to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 mention that before passing any order respondents shall offer an opportunity to hear the representation of the petitioner and order containing reasons shall be supplied to the petitioner. 5. The petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol),Judge. May 7, 2011 (Priti)