IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 458 of 2002 Date of decision: 7.12.2009 State of H.P. & Others ……….Petitioners Versus Amar Singh ……….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the petitioners : Mr. R.M. Bisht and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the respondent : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent was engaged as daily waged Beldar with the State of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1988. As per the mandays chart, he worked for 39 days in 1988. In 1989, he worked for 329 days. In 1990, the petitioner alleged that his services were orally terminated. He thereafter, filed OA No. 1166 of 1990 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) and on 16.10.1990 the Tribunal passed an interim order that the applicant shall be re-engaged forthwith. Pursuant to the said order, the applicant was re-engaged. The matter came up for final hearing in 1993. It was disposed of in view of the interim order passed. The Tribunal did not adjudicate the dispute before it as to whether the termination of the petitioner was legal or not. The petition was merely disposed of on the ground that in view of the interim order passed, the petitioner has been re-engaged. Thereafter, the petitioner filed OA No. 704 of 1999 out of which the present writ petition arises. In this petition, he prayed that the period from 2nd July, 1990 when his services were orally dispensed with till 25th October, 1990 when he was re-engaged pursuant to the interim order passed in OA No. 1166 of 1990, should be treated as regular service and counted for the purposes of seniority. This application has been allowed by the Tribunal and the State aggrieved by the said order has filed the present writ petition. 3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The question as to whether the termination of the petitioner on 2nd July, 1990 was legal or not was the subject matter of earlier OA No. 1166 of 1990. When the matter came up for final hearing, no adjudication was done and the application disposed of only on account of the interim order passed. This order of the Tribunal attained finality and the respondent did not challenge the order passed by the Tribunal. Now, six years later in the year 1999, he could not have filed another Original Application praying that this period be treated as regular service and counted for the seniority. The petitioner had specifically challenged his termination made on 2nd July, 1990 in OA No. 1166 of 1990. Once the interim order was passed in his favour and the petition disposed of, he was satisfied with the same and did not seek adjudication on merits of the termination of the order. Therefore, six years later he could not have raised this issue because this issue was subject matter in the earlier application. Once he accepted the order passed in the earlier petition it is obvious that he was satisfied with his re-engagement and did not challenge his termination. 4 From the mandays chart, the petitioner since the year 1991 has been shown in regular service. Therefore, he may be granted work charge status/his services be regularized in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Gauri Dutt vs State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366, by taking into account his service from 1.1.1991 onwards. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. December 7, 2009 (V.K. Ahuja), J. (vs)