IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 5040 of 2008. Decided on: 28.10.2010. _________________________________________________ S. Kumar … Petitioner. Versus H.P.M.C. … Respondent ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : None. For the respondent : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). The writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:- “That the impugned Annexure A-6 dated 1.2.95 may be quashed and set aside to the extent the applicant has been retired as Marketing Assistant and the respondent Corporation may be directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for voluntary retirement as Assistant Marketing Officer instead of Marketing Assistant and the retirement dues be also settled accordingly.” 2. In the reply in para 6 (i), it is stated as follows:- “That contents of para-1 are admitted only to the extent that petitioner was working as Assistant Marketing Officer in the respondent Corporation. It is however wrong and denied that petitioner has been discharging his duties to the satisfaction of the respondent Corporation. For willful absence, disobedience of order, misconduct, insubordination, negligence and lack of devotion to duties, he was served charge sheet vide memorandum No. dated 4.3.1992 (Annexure R-1). Even before that vide memorandum dated 1.2.1992, petitioner was charge sheeted for disobedience, unauthorized and willful absence from duties (Annexure R-2) and vide order 2 dated 20.5.1993 (Annexure R-3) after the charges were proved against the petitioner, penalty of with- holding of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner is also involved in another vigilance case (FIR No. 12/90 dated 6.10.1990) in which the Vigilance Department has informed that the applicant among others is also an accused and it has been desired to not release the pension/Gratuity in the case of accused.” 3. In view of the above and the intervening developments, in case the petitioner has still any grievance left, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the first respondent, in which case the first respondent shall take appropriate action within one month. 4. With these observations, writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. (Justice V.K. Sharma) Judge. October 28, 2010. (cr/virender)