IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3664/2011 Decided on:31.8.2011 _____________________________________________ Vinod Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus H.R.T.C. and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Priynka Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was engaged as a Transport Multi- Purpose Assistant on 1.7.2005. His appointment was cancelled on 6.6.2009. Petitioner made representation to the Transport Minister for the redressal of his grievance, vide Annexure P-5. He should have made representation to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation against the order dated 6.6.2009. 2. Consequently, in the interest of justice, petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation, within a period of two weeks from today. Thereafter, the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation shall decide the same within a period of four weeks by a speaking and reasoned order. 3. In view of above, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 31.8.2011 *awasthi*