1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No.10901 of 2008 Date of decision: 28.12.2010 ________________________________________________________________ Jagdish Chand .....Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that owing to subsequent events, that is change of Pradhan ( respondent No.4) as also, perhaps, the petitioner has been re-engaged, the petition may be disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to make a representation to the incumbent Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat for redressal of his surviving grievance, if any. 2. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with the observations that subject to the petitioner making a representation along with copy of this judgment to the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 respondents/competent authority within two months from today, the said respondents/competent authority shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter within next three months in accordance with law and justice by exploring the possibility of re- engaging the petitioner as part time water carrier, if not already working as such, against an available vacancy, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 6. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 28th December, 2010 (jai)