IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 9854 of 2008. Decided on 14th December, 2010. _____________________________________________________ Sukhchain Singh. ….Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Harish Dod, Advocate vice Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of Annexure A- 1, dated 21.11.2003. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any reply to Annexure A-1, dated 21.11.2003. Consequently, the petition is premature. However, in the interest of justice, the petitioner is permitted to file reply to Annexure A-1, dated 21.11.2003 within a period of one month from today. Thereafter, the decision shall be taken by the competent authority after taking into consideration the reply to be filed by the petitioner. The competent authority shall pass a speaking order. Since the petitioner has worked on the higher post, no recovery shall be effected from the salary of the petitioner. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. Copy dasti, on usual terms. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 14, 2010. (bhupender)