IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 664 of 2006. Date of decision: 26.8.2009 H.P State Forest Corporation Ltd. & Anr. …. Petitioners. Versus Sh.Lekh Ram ….. Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioners: Shri Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri T.S.Chauhan, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Administrative Tribunal dated 13th March, 2006 whereby the order dated 1.6.1995 refixing the pay of an employee was held to be illegal as the same had been passed without issuing notice to the employee. The learned Tribunal while passing the judgment relied upon the judgment of the earlier Division Bench passed in O.A No.1267 of 1995 decided on 18th June, 2002 titled as Krishan Lal v. H.P State Forest Corporation and another. The Corporation had filed 2 CWPs challenging the said judgment dated 18th June, 2002. A Division Bench of this Court after hearing the parties passed the following order in CWP No.1408 of 2002:- “5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the pleadings, contents and the materials placed on record, we are of the considered view that learned Tribunal has rightly set aside the order dated 1.6.1995, impugned in O.A. No. 1267 of 1995 on the ground that the same has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to private respondent. However, it goes without saying that the petitioners were and are always at liberty to take subsequent decision keeping in view the claim and representation of private respondent and other similar situated persons. To this extent the order dated 18th June, 2002 is modified and all the above mentioned writ petitions are disposed of with an observation that the petitioners are at liberty to consider the grievances and representation of private respondent or other similar situated persons and may, after hearing and affording opportunity of hearing to them, pass appropriate order keeping in view the applicability of byelaws and Rules framed by the H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. The earlier decision taken by the petitioners at the instance of private respondent and the other similar situated persons and brought before this court vide Annexures A-1, A-2 and A-3, enclosed in civil miscellaneous petition No. 1230 of 2008 in CWP No. 1394, civil miscellaneous petition No. 1231 in CWP No. 1395 of 2002 and civil miscellaneous petition No. 1229 3 of 2008 in CWP No.1408 of 2002 shall not come in the way in taking a fresh decision by the petitioners. However, we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claims of the parties as the petitioners may take decision on merits on the basis of the materials placed before them. 6. The writ petition No. 1408 of 2002 is disposed of in view of the above observations. The other two writ petitions No. 1394 of 2000 and 1395 of 2002 are also dealt with and disposed of on the same terms accordingly.” In view of the fact that the question involved in the present case is identical, we, therefore, dispose of the present writ petition in light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.1408 of 2002 and other connected matters. The directions given therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge August 26, 2009 (V.K.Ahuja) (m) Judge