CWP(T) No. 6557/2008 (OA 854/2000) 21.04.2010 Present: Mr. H. K. Paul, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P. M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No. 1 and 2. The petitioner was initially employed as a Deputy Ranger in the Department of Forests, Government of Himachal Pradesh. He was subsequently sent on deputation to the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation. He was absorbed in the said Corporation. However, since there was no scope of promotion petitioner applied for repatriation to the parent department. This he did so in terms of the policy formulated by the State Government. That there existed such policy is evident from the affidavit filed by Sh. Abhay Pant, Joint Secretary (Forests) to the Government of H.P. (Annexure A-5). The Forest Corporation in terms of letter dated 9.2.1998 (Annexure A-9) had also recommended the petitioner’s case to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. In fact case of repatriation of the petitioner was considered at the highest level which is evident from Annexure A-12. But however petitioner’s case was rejected by the Secretary at his own level and the order was communicated to the petitioner vide memo dated 23.2.2000 issued by the Divisional Manager, Forest Working Division, Shimla-2 (Annexure A-14). This order reads as under: “In continuation to this office letter No. SFC/Estt/ 0914 (SIC) dt. 21.5.99 your case for deabsorption with recommendation of the Board of Directors was taken up to the Govt. but the Govt. has rejected the same. This is for your information.” -2- Undisputedly the said order is unreasoned. It does not even take into consideration the Government’s policy and the earlier decision taken by the Government while dealing with the petitioner’s case. Petitioner has also not been afforded any opportunity of hearing. What were the reasons which weighed with the State while taking such decision have also not been indicated in the reply filed by the State. Faced with this situation the impugned order being illegal is quashed. Respondents are directed to decide the petitioner’s case, by affording adequate opportunity of hearing/representation, within a period of three months from today. Needless to add the authorities shall pass a reasoned order which shall be communicated to the petitioner. While taking such decision the authorities shall take into account its policy and the earlier decisions taken while dealing with the petitioner’s case. With the aforesaid observations the petition stands allowed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 21, 2010 (PK)