IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 10325 of 2008. Decided on: 23.12.2010. __________________________________________________________ Manohar Lal. … Petitioner. Versus H.R.T.C. and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): Petitioner was appointed as driver on contractual basis. His services were terminated on 27th March, 1999. He preferred original application No.3460 of 2003 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directed the original application to be treated as representation to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation. Same has been decided by him on 12th January, 2004 vide Annexure A-6. The order dated 12th January, 2004 is neither speaking nor detailed. Once the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has directed the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation to consider the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - representation, he was required to pass a speaking/detailed order after taking into consideration all the pleas raised in the original application. 2. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-6, dated 12th January, 2004 is quashed and set aside. There shall be a direction to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation to decide the representation afresh after hearing the petitioner and by taking into consideration all the pleas raised in the original application, within a period of two months after the production of certified coy of this judgment by the petitioner. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 23, 2010. (sck).