IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 9636 of 2008. Decided on 8th December, 2010. _____________________________________________________ Joginder Singh. …Petitioner. -Versus- Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation Ltd. and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. For respondents No. 3 and 4. : Mr. R.P. Singh and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate Generals. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that he was engaged as Helper on daily wage basis on 01.06.1988. F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner and four more persons, namely, Prakash Chand, Het Ram, Tara Singh and Beli Ram bearing No. 16/1994, dated 10.03.1994 at Police Station Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. Consequently, the challan was put up in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli at Solan on 19.03.1994. According to the reply filed by the respondents, a theft of 53 Khair Billets took place in the night of 09.03.1994 from Kainchi More Road Side (Kassal) Depot of Kunihar Forest Division. The petitioner was on duty on that day. The learned trial Court acquitted the petitioner on 30th September, 2002. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - According to the petitioner, no notice was ever issued to him at the time of terminating his services. 2. What emerges from the facts pleaded by the parties, is that the petitioner has not reported for duties w.e.f. 10th March, 1994. The present petition has been filed in the month of September, 2003. According to the case of the respondent- Corporation, the petitioner has himself abandoned his job. There is merit in the plea raised by the respondent-Corporation. In case the petitioner had been retrenched in 1994, he ought to have filed the petition expeditiously within a period of six months to one year. He has waited for long nine years before approaching the learned Tribunal. It is, thus, evident from the conduct of the petitioner that he has abandoned the job. He has not entered into any correspondence with the respondent- Corporation from 1994 till 2003, except when he made a representation after he was acquitted by the Criminal Court on 27.03.2003. Petitioner has also not placed any tangible evidence on record to conclusively prove that he had completed more than 240 days at the time of his retrenchment. In these circumstances, the petition is barred by delay and laches and the same is not maintainable after 9 long years. 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 08, 2010. (bhupender) - 3 - - 4 - `