IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 4710 of 2010 along with connected matters mentioned below. Decided on: 17th August, 2010. (For title, please see below) Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate,for the respondents in CWPs No.4710, 4837, 4838, 4839, 4840, 4842, 4843, 4845, 4846 and 4847 of 2010. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents in CWPs No. 4882, 4883, 4884 and 4885 of 2010. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) 1. CWP No. 4710 of 2010. Manoj Kumar and others. Vs. CEO-cum- Secretary HIMUDA & anr. 2. CWP No. 4837 of 2010. Suneel Kumar. Vs. CEO-cum- Secretary HIMUDA & anr. 3. CWP No. 4838 of 2010. Bhupender Singh. Vs. CEO-cum- Secretary HIMUDA & anr. 4. CWP No. 4839 of 2010. Ajay Kumar. Vs. CEO-cum- Secretary HIMUDA & anr. 2 5. CWP No. 4840 of 2010. Ramesh Kumar. Vs. CEO-cum- Secretary HIMUDA & anr. 6. CWP No. 4842 of 2010. Vinod Kumar. Vs. CEO-cum- Secretary HIMUDA & anr. 7. CWP No. 4843 of 2010. Suneel Kumar. Vs. CEO-cum- Secretary HIMUDA & anr. 8. CWP No. 4845 of 2010. Munish Kumar. Vs. CEO-cum- Secretary HIMUDA & anr. 9. CWP No. 4846 of 2010. Kiran Kumari. Vs. CEO-cum- Secretary HIMUDA & anr. 10. CWP No. 4847 of 2010. Mohinder Pal. Vs. CEO-cum- Secretary HIMUDA & anr. 11. CWP No. 4882 of 2010. Jitender Kumar. Vs. CEO-cum- Secretary HIMUDA & anr. 12. CWP No. 4883 of 2010. Ajay Kumar. Vs. CEO-cum- Secretary HIMUDA & anr. 13. CWP No. 4884 of 2010. Balbir Singh. Vs. CEO-cum- Secretary HIMUDA & anr. 14. CWP No. 4885 of 2010. Avinash. Vs. CEO-cum- Secretary HIMUDA & anr. The petitioners in these cases are aggrieved since the first respondent has discontinued their services. According to the 3 learned Standing Counsel for the Authority, the services have been dispensed with on the basis of the direction issued by the Government for accommodating the surplus employees. While admitting these petitions, this Court passed interim order to the effect that in case there is work available, the petitioners will also be engaged. It is also seen from the writ petitions that their representations are pending before the second respondent. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of as follows: 1. In the cases of the petitioners who have filed the representations before the second respondent, the same will be disposed of within three months. In the cases of those petitioners, who have not filed any representation, they may do so within a month from today. 2. In case there is work available with the first respondent, the respondents will engage the petitioners in preference to fresh recruits. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 17th August, 2010 ( Justice Kuldip Singh), (tr) Judge.