CWP(T) No.3120/08(OA No.636/96) 5.3.2009 Present: Mr.Dalip Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General, with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General, for the respondents. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying for the following reliefs:- (i) That the enquiry report at Annexure A-19 impugned order of compulsory retirement passed against the applicant at Annexure A-1 dated April 30, 1993 and order dated 26th April 1995 at Annexure A-2 rejecting the review/appeal of applicant, may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the applicant may be reinstated in service with all consequential reliefs arising as a result of quashing of above mentioned orders and arrears of salary etc. becoming due and payable to him on this account. Annexure A-2 is the order passed by the Joint Secretary (IPH) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, dismissing the review petition filed by the petitioner assailing the order of his compulsorily retirement passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 30.4.1983. Annexure A-2 is reproduced as under:- “Subject: Review petition on compassionate grounds for quashing the orders of Compulsory retirement. Subject: PBW.1-A(5)25/94 Dated 26.4.95 Reference his letter/review petition dated 6.3.1995, on the subject noted above. Shri J.C. Thakur, Junior Engineer (retired) is hereby informed that his Review Petition was considered and hereby rejected.” Mr.R.K.Sharma, submits that the said order passed in effect was an order passed by the Appellate Authority as statutory appeal is provided for. The order is unreasoned and non-speaking one. It is cryptic and just a three lines order. Reasons ought to have been assigned before passing the same. In this view of the matter, without going into the other conditions raised by the petitioner, the impugned order, Annexure A-2, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority concerned to pass a speaking order after affording due opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner has retired, therefore, it would be expedient that the matter is heard and decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 4 weeks from today. 5th March, 2009 (Sanjay Karol), (C) Judge.