IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C. Revision No. 59/2010 Decided on:10.8.2010 _____________________________________________ Deputy General Manager, UCO Bank and another. Petitioners. Versus Krishan Lal Gautam …Respondent. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Inderjit Singh Narwal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). The respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’ for convenience sake) has filed a civil suit No. 91 of 2009 for declaration that the order orders dated 8.7.2009 and 11.7.2009 passed by the petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendants’ for convenience sake) are illegal, wrong, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. However, the fact of the matter is that orders dated 8.7.2009 and 11.7.2009 have been revoked by the Management. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 2. Mr. Chandranarayana Singh submits that wife of the plaintiff is suffering from cancer and his daughter is also physically challenged to the extent of 45%. According to him, defendants-Bank being State, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, should take humane approach. He further submits that the Bank should explore the possibility to adjust his client at a place from where he can look after his ailing wife and physically challenged daughter. Mr. R.K. Bawa learned Senior Counsel on the basis of instructions imparted to him by Mr. C.L. Kaushal, Assistant Chief Officer, who is present in the Court, submits that the plaintiff can be adjusted by creating additional post at Solan. He has made it clear that this concession has been given taking into consideration the difficulties the plaintiff is facing. Mr. Chandranarayana Singh on the basis of instructions imparted to him by his client, who is also present in the Court, is agreeable to this suggestion. 3. Consequently, the defendant-Management is directed to issue necessary orders to post the petitioner at Solan within a period of one week from today. However, in the interest of justice and in view of the circumstances enumerated hereinabove, it is made clear that as and when the post equivalent to the post held by the plaintiff falls vacant in or around Shimla, his case shall be considered sympathetically for posting him in or around Shimla to enable him to get his wife treated at I.G.M.C. Shimla. 3 4. Accordingly, in view of the fair stand adopted by the Management, the plaintiff seeks liberty to withdraw the suit. Liberty granted. The suit is dismissed having been withdrawn. 5. In the light of above, the petition is disposed of so as the pending application, if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 10.8.2010 *awasthi*