1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 4027 of 2008 Decided on: 30th November, 2010. Rajesh Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus H.P. Tourism Development Corporation & others ...Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. ( Oral ) The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: “i) That the orders of dis-engagement dated 31..5.1995 may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the respondent corporation may be directed to re- engaged the applicant as a washerboy-cum- helper/Driver, in the Corporation.” 2. It is seen from the record that on 22nd January, 1997, the Tribunal had passed the following order: “The respondents are directed to re-engage the applicant in the same capacity preferably at the same place or in the vicinity wherever the work is available as during May, 1995.” 3. Thereafter, the Tribunal also directed to file supplementary affidavit as to whether the order has been complied with. This Court after transfer, passed an order dated 23rd August, 2010 as to whether the order had been complied with. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has not turned up. The affidavit to the extent relevant reads as follows: 2 “That in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble H.P. Administrative Tribunal dated 22.1.1997 the applicant was called through the Dy. General Manager. HPTDC, Marketing Office Dharamshala to be re-engaged in the same capacity as washer boy but the applicant did not approach the respondent corporation. However, Shri Roshan Lal, the father of the applicant who was also working as driver in the respondent Corporation that time informed the Dy. General Manager Dharamsala of this Corporation that his son is working in Delhi and earning well, hence not interested to join in the respondent Corporation.” 4. According to the petitioner, he had sent his request by speed post on 19.6.1997, but there was no response. There will be a direction to the first respondent to look into this matter, with notice to the petitioner and to the second respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law. If it is seen that the petitioner had in fact tendered his willingness to work and the petitioner was denied work, in which case the petitioner shall be entitled to continuity of service for all purposes except the back wages. Needless also to say, that the petitioner will also be re-engaged in terms of the order, as extracted above. The needful, as above, shall be done within three months from the date of production of the judgment by the petitioner alongwith the supplementary affidavit before the first respondent. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. November 30th, 2010. (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (hl) Judge.