IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1106 of 2009 Date of decision : 14.5.2010 ____________________________________________________________ Piar Din …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vijay Bhatia, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advoate General. Justice Kurian Joseph,C.J.(Oral) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the following prayer:- “That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to implement the Office Order dated 11.3.1997 (Annexure P-1), in letter and spirit and the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be reengaged as Beldar with all consequential benefits such as; seniority, back wages etc.” It is seen from Annexure P-1, the order passed by the Irrigation-cum-Public Health that ………………”all the applicants who were employed before 6.10.1994 are to be absorbed immediately on the posts, if vacant. No new person is to be engaged till all applicants mentioned above are absorbed in the department IPH Division Ghumarwin”. 2. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has submitted that the petitioner had worked only for 22 days in the year 1994 and thereafter he had abandoned the job. We are afraid that the said contention cannot be appreciated. We find from Annexure R-1 communication of the Assistant Engineer of the I & PH Sub Division, Ghumarwin that the petitioner was engaged last on 9.7.1994. As per the communication referred to above the incumbent has to be re- engaged in case they had worked prior to 1994. That apart, we also find that petitioner himself had been before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal wherein the erstwhile Tribunal had made observations that in case of availability of any work and in case of any person junior to the petitioner had been recruited either from the already existing persons or from open market, the petitioner should be also engaged. On 22.12.2009 this Court had issued directions to furnish instruction as to how many persons were employed after 11.3.1996. We find that 24 persons have been engaged after 1996. The grounds taken for such engagement is that the same is on compassionate ground and on the direction issued by this Court. 3. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal had not made any distinction as to how many persons had been engaged on compassionate ground or on need basis. It is also to be noted that if the engagement is on compassionate ground then it shows that there was a vacancy. According to respondents, engagement of such workers was on the basis of directions issued by the Court or Tribunal. If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to succeed since he has worked prior to 6.10.1994 and on the basis of the directions issued in his favour by the State Administrative Tribunal and since evidently juniors have been engaged after the direction issued by the Tribunal. 4. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the Executive Engineer respondent No.3 to engage the petitioner. We make it clear that petitioner shall not be entitled for any back wages. The seniority will be counted from 8.4.2009, the date of admission of the writ petition. Copy Dasti ((Justice Kurian Joseph ) Chief Justice May 14, 2010 (Kuldip Singh) (sks) Judge