1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA L.P.A. No. 97 of 2011 Date of decision: 4.8.2011 H.R.T.C & anr ……Appellants Vs. Sureshna Devi …… Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. S.R. Sharma, Advocate. R.B.Misra, J (Oral) The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/HRTC against the judgment dated 30.12.2010 passed by learned single Judge of this Court in CWP (T) No. 12082/2008 titled as Sureshna Devi Vs. H.R.T.C & another, whereby the petition filed by the private respondent was allowed and order dated 6.5.2005 was set aside and the appellant was directed to re-engage the private respondent within a period of 15 days after production of certified copy of the judgment with all the consequential benefits. 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the private respondent was engaged as part time worker in the year 1994, who had been discharging her duties continuously. However, due to cloudburst, the office of appellant was shifted in rented house, thereafter, vide order dated 6.5.2005 her service was dispensed with. In the order dated 6.5.2005, no reason was indicated except mentioning that the office was shifted to another place where the service of respondent was not required for cleaning and sweeping the office. 3. Keeping in view all the aspects of the matter, learned Single Judge has found that disengagement order dated 6.5.2005 was not legally sustainable, as such, a direction was given to the appellant to re-engage the respondent. 4. In our considered view, the order dated 6.5.2005, disengaging the respondent, was not passed on the ground of mis-behaviour or misconduct. In any office or organization, the requirement of cleaning and sweeping is necessary and it could not be highlighted that any alternative arrangement has been made for cleaning and sweeping the office. We do not find any scope of interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge except that directions for giving consequential benefits are to be modified. As such, the direction is given 3 to the appellant/HRTC to re-engage the respondent from the date of the judgment dated 30.12.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP (T) No. 12082/2008 The back wages are not to be paid to the respondent. However, she shall be entitled to the benefit of her past services so that services rendered by her in the past, on part time basis, may be counted for giving her the benefit of continuity and length of service. 5. In view of the above observations, the LPA is disposed of. In view of the disposal of main appeal, application(s), if any, is also disposed of. (R.B. Misra ), J. (Dev Darshan Sud),J. 4.8.2011 (sl) 4