IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 4128 of 2008 Date of decision: 10.11.2010 _________________________________________________________ Murari Lal Sharma. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & another. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, J (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(a) and (b): “7(a) The order of the respondent No. 1 annexure PD may kindly be set aside & quashed. 7(b) The respondents be directed to treat the training period from 16.7.73 to 15.4.1974 as spent on duty and pay the salary for the same and previous order of sanction of leave be also amended accordingly.” 2. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the following stand has been taken in para 6(i) and (iii): “6(i) That no appointment order has been annexed with the application. Therefore, no submission can be made about the contents of the appointment order. However, it is not disputed that he was appointed as Trained Graduate 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. Teacher (Arts) in the Deptt. of Education. A ...2... teacher who is appointed as trained teacher he is only required to undergo short term refresher/training and not any other training at Govt. expenses. However, B.Ed training on Govt. expenses were undertaken by those who used to be appointed untrained teacher and not otherwise. 6(iii) that the applicant was sanctioned leave of the kind due for the purpose during 1974. It is submitted that if the applicant was aggrieved by the orders of the Director of Education dated 31.5.74, he should have been approached the Court during 1974. But after over 20 years, the applicant can not be allowed to seek relief at such a belated stage. It is submitted that limitation does not extend automatically on filing representation after representation.” 3. The stand on behalf of the respondents is further apparent from the operative part of order dated September 30, 1996, of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, passed in pursuance of order dated 30.12.1993, Annexure PB of the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, which is extracted below: “From the above it is clear that the petitioner was not a sponsored candidate for the said training nor was he entitled to study leave being an unsponsored and temporary government employee. Moreover, extraordinary leave is applied (a) when no other leave is admissible; (b) when other leave is admissible but the Government servant applied in writing for the grant of extraordinary leave. The petitioner had applied for on his own for leave without pay. Hen ce, the representation of the petitioner that the period he spent on the training course be treated as 'in service' and he be given full pay and allowances for the same is devoid of any merit and thus rejected accordingly. The claim for additional remuneration for 'guidance services' rendered by the petitioner to the department is also rejected as this work was performed in the normal course of his duties.” 4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits ...3... that the order dated September 30, 1996, Annexure PB, was passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Education) without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 5. The record reveals that though order dated September 30, 1996, Annexure PD, was passed by the Commissioner-cum- Secretary (Education) on September 30, 1996, and reply on behalf of the respondents was filed thereafter, which is dated 28th January, 1998, yet there is no mention about order Annexure PD therein. Thus, it appears, ex facie, that before passing order dated September 30, 1996, Annexure PD, the petitioner was not heard. 6. In view of the above, order dated September 30, 1996, Annexure PD, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make a representation alongwith copy of this judgment and additional documents, if any, to respondent No. 1 within one month from today which shall be considered and finally disposed of after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a further period of three months. 7. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 10th November, 2010 (virender)