IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 10164 of 2008. Decided on: 21 st December, 2010. Rajneesh Kumar. …Petitioner. -Versus- Himco. Fed. and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No ________________________________________________________ __ For the petitioner. : None. For respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate. None for respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 4, already exparte. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that he has not been permitted to discharge his duties immediately after the end of second session, i.e., 23.06.2002. 2. Case of the respondent-Federation is that the petitioner has not come to resume his duties after the end of year, i.e., 31st March, 2003. According to the reply, the session had to commence w.e.f. 14.10.2003. Since the petitioner himself has not joined his duties, it cannot be construed that his services were terminated. 3. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 21, 2010. (bhupender) 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No