IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 9395 of 2008 (OA No 1158 of 2003) Date of decision: 3.9.2010 Jeet Ram ….. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P.& others …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mrs. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J (Oral). Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the pay of the petitioner has been reduced vide corrigendum, dated 4.1.2003, Annexure P-2. He has submitted that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to submit an appropriate representation to respondent No.3 regarding the grievance of the petitioner for reduction of his pay. 2. The learned Additional Advocate General has no objection, if the petitioner is permitted to file a representation to respondent No.3 regarding his grievance. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to file representation to respondent No.3 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… within a period of two weeks from today with a copy of this judgment and in case, such representation is filed, then respondent No.3 shall decide the representation adverting to the points raised with a speaking order in another two months. Till such representation is decided no recovery shall be made from the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. September 3, 2010 (Kuldip Singh), (pankaj) Judge.