IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 3772 of 2008 Date of decision: 11.11.2010 _____________________________________________________________ Babu Ram. ....Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. ____________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? _____________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 2. _____________________________________________________________ Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice (Oral): The petitioner has approached this court by challenging Annexure A-4 the original order and Annexure A-6 appellate order. As per Annexure A-4, one increment of the petitioner was withhold without cumulative effect. 2. In reply, it is stated as follows:- “Admitted to the extent that the applicant preferred an appeal under rule 16 of the CCS and CCA rules, before the learned Financial Commissioner (Rev.). But it is denied that the applicant was not afforded the opportunity of personal hearing by the learned Financial Commissioner (Rev.). The applicant was -2- directed to appear for personal hearing on 4.5.95 at 3.00 PM vide Additional Secretary (Rev.) letter No. Raj. (K) (B)-14-39/93-Part (6) dated 24.4.1995 (copy enclosed as annexure R-1/A). it is also denied that the copy of decision was supplied to the applicant on 18.1.1996. The copy of order dated 6.10.1995 was supplied to the applicant direct by the respondent No.1 on dated 6.10.1995 under registered cover which is evident from annexure A-6 with O.A. Later on inform the subordinate offices. Sub-para (a) of (D): The orders passed by the respondents No.1 and 2 are legal and under the rules, hence needs no quashing of these orders. Sub Para (b): Admitted to the extent that the applicant was given the additional charge of Muhal Bharnal from 22.10.1991 to 26.12.1992 and the consolidation work in this muhal was started here in June, 1989 and till date it is not completed. But it is pertinent to mention here that the consolidation work of this village is not completed due to the wrong checking by the applicant, which is the cent percent duty of the Kanungo under rule 9.6 of the H.P. (Holding, Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 annexure R-II (english version as annexure R-2/B”. 3. In case the petitioner has any dispute with regard to the factual position, as stated in the reply, it will be open to the petitioner to seek re-hearing before the first respondent and in which case, the matter -3- be heard afresh by the Appellate Authority. 4. With the above observations, the petition is disposed, so also the pending application (s), if any. (Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice (V.K. Sharma) 11th November, 2010. Judge. (kck/lsp)