IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 4243 of 2008 Judgement reserved on: 4.6.2009. Date of decision: June 15, 2009. Rattan Lal …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The petitioner had filed O.A. No. 531 of 1997 before erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal). The Tribunal was abolished and the O.A. No. 531 of 1997 was transferred to this court in view of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (transfer of decided and pending cases and applications) Act, 2008, on transfer the O.A. No. 531 of 1997 was registered as CWP(T) No. 4243 of 2008. 2. The facts in brief are that petitioner had filed O.A. No. 90 of 1990 before the Tribunal, which was decided on 8.7.1996. The respondents were required to comply with the order dated 8.7.1996 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… but instead of making the payment of arrears within stipulated time, the respondents No. 2, 3 issued direction to dispense with the services of the petitioner vide Annexure A-3. The petitioner has filed present petition to quash Annexure A-3. The respondents have misinterpreted the order of the Tribunal to the prejudice of the petitioner. The Annexure A-3 is contrary to the spirit of order dated 8.7.1996 of the Tribunal. 3. The petition was contested by the respondents, they have pleaded that order of the Tribunal has been executed faithfully. The petitioner has been paid the salary as directed, the direction issued to dispense with the services of the petitioner is just and proper since there is no post against which the petitioner be deemed to have been employed in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2100. 4. Heard and perused the record. The operative part of the direction issued by the Tribunal in the order dated 8.7.1996 is as follows:- “Thus keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the instant case we direct that in view of the nature of duties being performed by the applicant coupled with his long duration of service rendered to the respondents under the Scheme, which is likely to continue, we deem it fit and ultimately hold that the applicant should be deemed to have been employed in the lowest pay scale referred to above, that is, in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2100 w.e.f. April 1,1990. We direct the respondents to continue the applicant in the above said pay scale in view of the ratio laid down in State of Haryana Versus Piara Singh reported in 1992 (4) SLR 770. We further direct that the services of the applicant shall not be dispensed with except in accordance with law. We further direct the respondents to make the payment of the arrears to the applicant within six months from the date of this order. The application stands disposed of in terms of the above.” The respondent No. 3 vide Annexure A-3 after giving a reference of O.A. No. 90 of 1990 has directed respondent No. 4 that after the payment as directed in the judgement is released to the petitioner, …3… issue show cause notice for dispensing with the services of the petitioner in terms of the order of the Tribunal. 5. In the operative part of the order dated 8.7.1996 of the Tribunal, as noticed above, there is no direction to dispense with the services of the petitioner. The observation of the Tribunal is only to the extent that services of the petitioner shall not be dispensed with except in accordance with law. In other words, the respondents were required to examine the case of the petitioner independently objectively before issuing show cause notice to the petitioner for dispensing with his services. There is no indication in Annexure A-3 that case of the petitioner was examined objectively and thereafter a decision was taken to issue show cause notice to him for dispensing with his services. The respondents have misconstrued the order dated 8.7.1996 of the Tribunal. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General could not show that case of the petitioner was examined independently by respondents objectively before issuing order Annexure A-3. In these circumstances, Annexure A-3 dated February 1997 issued by respondents No. 3 to respondent No. 4 is liable to be set-aside and quashed. 6. No other point was urged. 7. The result of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and order dated February 1997 Annexure A-3 is quashed. The respondents are at liberty to proceed strictly in accordance with law. No costs. June 15, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.