IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 8879/2008 Decided on:14.7.2010 _____________________________________________ Vinod Kumar Goel. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner made representation for the redressal of his grievance to the FC-cum-Secretary (IPH) on 2.2.2002, but the same has been rejected by the FC-cum-Secretary (IPH) on 2.4.2002 without assigning any reason. It is settled law by now that once an employee makes a representation for the redressal of his grievance, the same should be considered in view of the grounds/pleas raised in the representation and the decision thereon has to be speaking/reasoned. In the instant case, the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 order dated 2.4.2002, whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected, is neither speaking nor reasoned. 2. Accordingly, Annexure A-8 dated 2.4.2002 is quashed and set aside. FC-cum-Secretary (IPH) is directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law by a speaking/reasoned order after hearing the petitioner in person. It is made clear that all the grounds/pleas raised by the petitioner will be addressed to. 3. In the light of above, the petition is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 14.7.2010 *awasthi*