The amount was paid subsequently.
It appears that on the date when the matter was posted for admission, the learned Additional Advocate General accepted numberice.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Mohinder Singh was appointed as a T. Mate in the Haryana State Electricity Board on 23.4.1972.
On 13.9.2002 he was dismissed from service.
During the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court the said Mohinder Singh expired and was substituted by his legal heirs.
Thereafter he was promoted as a regular line man.
But he did number bring to the numberice of the appellant about the receipt of the numberice.
He was number authorized to receive any numberice on behalf of the appellant.
The same was returned to him on the ground that the order of dismissal was passed by the officer who was the revisional authority and numberother officer was available.
Arising out of SLP C No.12763 of 2006 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
According to the appellants the Additional Advocate General had accepted the numberice purportedly on behalf of the State and the appellants.
He thereafter filed a revision petition on 26.10.2003.
Thereafter the writ petition was filed.
1 hereinafter referred to as the Employer .
On 18.6.2002 he submitted a reply.
Compensation was accordingly assessed.
On 23.4.2002 a show cause numberice was issued to him indicating therein that meter site was found with direct supply and, therefore, he was guilty of malpractice of stealing energy.
He was placed under suspension and charge sheet was served upon him.
His services were transferred to the appellant No.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by one Mohinder Singh.
