IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 3960 of 2008. Decided on: 06.07.2010. __________________________________________________________ B.S. Parmar. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Petitioner has made a representation for the redressal of his grievance vide letter dated 25th June, 1996. The same has been rejected by the Special Secretary (PW) on 17th July, 1996. A bare perusal of the memo dated 17th July, 1996 reveals that no reasons have been assigned while rejecting the representation of the petitioner. It was necessary for the Special Secretary (PW) to take into consideration all the pleas/grounds taken in the representation made by the petitioner for redressal of his grievances. 2. Consequently, Annexure A-18 dated 17th July, 1996 is quashed and set aside. Special Secretary (PW) is directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner afresh in view of the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - pleas/grounds taken by him in the representation by a speaking order. The petitioner shall also be heard in person. Needful be done within a period of ten weeks from today. 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. July 06, 2010. (sck).