IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 3122 of 2008 (OA No 642 of 1996 Date of decision: 6.8.2010 Dhian Singh ….. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P.& another …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General and Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J(Oral). The prayers made in the petition are mainly as follows:- “(i) That the orders entries made in the C.R. for the year 1993-94 be expunged. (ii) The orders referred above against Annexures P/1 to Annexure P/3, whereby the Annual Confidential Report was conveyed and step up increment refused and the representation dated 25.8.1995, rejected by the respondent and arrears paid to the applicant”. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… Report for the year 1993-94 were allegedly communicated to the petitioner on 1.6.1994 but this communication was never received by the petitioner. The Director Animal Husbandry vide Annexure P-3 dated 7.8.1995 supplied a copy of communication dated 1.6.1994 to petitioner through District Animal Husbandry Officer, Recong Peo, District Kinnaur. The petitioner thereafter had filed the representation Annexure P-4 dated 25.8.1995 to Director Animal Husbandry, Himachal Pradesh which was rejected on 21.9.1995 vide annexure P-1 on the ground that representation is time barred. 3. The respondent in the reply has stated that the adverse remarks were duly communicated to the petitioner by the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department, vide registered letter dated 1.6.1994. However, a communication was received from Assistant Director (Animal Health/Breeding), District Kinnaur stating therein that the petitioner Dhian Singh Kashyap, Veterinary Pharmacist had denied to receive the adverse remarks communicated to him. The photocopy was therefore, supplied to the petitioner through the Assistant Director (Animal Health/Breeding), District Kinnaur. 4. The reply of respondent indicates that the department accepted the stand of Dhian Singh that earlier communication dated 1.6.1994 was not received by the petitioner, therefore, a photocopy of communication dated …3… 1.6.1994 was sent to petitioner alongwith letter dated 7.8.1995 Annexure P-3. 5. The representation Annexure P-4 of petitioner has been rejected by non speaking order Annexure P-1 by holding that it is time barred. Once the department has accepted the plea of the petitioner that petitioner had not received the earlier communication dated 1.6.1994 and a photocopy of that communication was sent to the petitioner only on 7.8.1995, therefore, from the date of communication dated 7.8.1995 the representation filed by the petitioner cannot be said to be time barred. In these circumstances Annexure P-1 is quashed with a direction to the Director Animal Husbandry to decide the representation Annexure P- 4 of the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date a copy of this judgment is received by Director Animal Husbandry which shall be furnished by the petitioner. August 6, 2010 (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge.