APURV KUMAR SAH Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner, who was originally employed by respondent No.2, was sent on deputation to Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam i.e. respondent No.3 on 1/8/1991. On 23/3/2017, respondent No.3 repatriated the petitioner to his parent department. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid action of respondent No.3, petitioner initially approached the HP Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") by way of OA No. 1432 of 2017, who vide order dtd. 13/4/2017, directed the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

(2.) petitioner to approach respondent No.3 by way of representation.

(3.) Representation filed pursuant to aforesaid order came to be rejected and .