IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2942/2008 Decided on:5.4.2010 _____________________________________________ Padam Singh. …Petitioner. Versus Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. G.R Palsara, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. For respondent No. 4: Nemo _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, J (oral) Petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the Mandi District Cooperative Marketing and Consumers’ Federation Limited, Mandi on 27.9.1976. A notice was served upon the petitioner vide Annexure ‘PB’ dated 11.1.1994 whereby his services were terminated. He assailed this decision by filing OA No. 640/1994 before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The same was directed to be treated as representation by the Secretary (Coop.) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 29.12.1994. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 He rejected the same vide memo dated 19.4.1995. Petitioner has sought direction to the respondent-State to provide alternative employment in Government Department/Public Sector Undertaking/Semi-Autonomous Bodies or in any Development Project. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh placed the society under liquidation vide order November, 1992. Liquidator was appointed. Petitioner was working in a society. He never remained employee of the State Government. Legal questions raised in this petition are no more res integra in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 640/2001 decided on 6.8.2008, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Roshan Lal and others (and other connected writ petitions). In CWP No. 640/2001, their Lordships have held as under: “It appears that the factum that the appeal filed by the Union had been dismissed was not brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the learned Tribunal could not have issued any directions to the State to grant employment to persons who were being retrenched from the Consumer Societies since they were not employees of the Government or Government undertakings. They were the employees of Societies registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. If such societies are liquidated, the employee may suffer a hardship but this does not mean that the Court has jurisdiction to issue directions to the State that all the employees should be given employment. In 3 fact, the Apex Court finally gave no such direction. In view of the above discussion, all the writ petitions are allowed and the orders of the learned Tribunal are set aside. We may, however, clarify that the State on its own can always consider a scheme for rehabilitation of the employees of the Societies but no directions in this behalf could have been given by the learned Tribunal or by this Court.” In view of the ratio of the judgment cited hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 5.4. 2010. *awasthi*