IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 6517 of 2008. Decided on: 16th August, 2010. Gopal Dutt. ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and ors. ……Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh,, Judge. For the petitioner : None. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. B.S. Attri, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner has challenged the appointment of the 4th respondent as Panchayat Sahayak. In the reply, it is stated that though the petitioner was placed at Sr.No.1, neither the petitioner nor the Sr. No.2 could be appointed in the Panchayat since both the petitioner and Sr. No.2 had their near relatives in the Government job. The decision is at Annexure R-1. The decision taken by the Gram Panchayat is that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision, it is for the petitioner to pursue his grievance before the SDO (Civil) under Section 148 of the Panchayati Raj Act. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of making it clear that in the event of the petitioner approaching the Appellate Authority within a period of one month from today, it 2 shall be treated to have been filed in time and thereafter the Appellate Authority will look into the matter with notice to the affected party and take appropriate action thereon in accordance with law within another six months. We make it clear that we have not adverted to the merit of the contentions taken by the parties and all those contentions are left open to be pursued before the statutory Authority. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 16th August, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (tr) Judge.