IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 8088 of 2008 Decided on: 6.4.2011 Manoj Kumar …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. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents. _______________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : Petitioner was regularized vide office order dated 23.7.1999. However, the same has been withdrawn vide Annexure-A2, dated 29.10.2001. The petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of Annexure-A2, dated 29.10.2001. The petitioner has suffered civil and evil consequences. 2. The similar view has been taken by this Court in CWP(T) No. 8051 of 2008 and CWP(T) No. 8113 of 2008, decided on 21.10.2009. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. Annexure -A2, dated 29.10.2001 is quashed and set aside. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge April 6, 2011 (K. Attri) 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No