IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 3764 of 2008 (OA No.1359/1996) Date of Decision : May 15, 2009 Sandesh Kumar ………petitioner Versus: Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University & Anr. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : None For the respondents : Mr. B. S. Swami vice Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The matter initially was filed before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. With the enactment of The Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of decided and pending cases and applications) Act, 2008 (No.14 of 2008), the same stands transferred to this Court. Post admission, the matter had come up for hearing on 31.3.2009, when Ms. Madhu Sharma, learned vice counsel for the petitioner prayed for an adjournment. The matter was adjourned for 6.4.2009 and 20.4.2009, when none caused appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Notice to the petitioner informing him of the hearing of the petition was also issued for today. Inspite of pass over, none has caused appearance even today. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “(i) To set aside and quash the verbal orders of the respondents dispensing with the services of the petitioner without following prescribed procedure under the law and to direct them to allow the petitioner to work against the job he was working on daily wages. (ii) To award the costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner. (iii) To call for the records/muster-rolls for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal.” According to the petitioner, he was engaged on daily wages in a plant Nursery set-up by the respondents at a remuneration of Rs.45.75 paise per day. He continued to work from July 1995 to September, 1996, when his services were orally dispensed with by the respondents. While admitting the factum of engagement of the petitioner, the respondents have opposed the petition, on the ground that the petitioner was negligent, lazy and troublesome worker. An FIR was registered against him and he also tendered apology for his misbehaviour. Petitioner abandoned the job of his own in order to avoid the disciplinary action against him. That apart, he was a habitual absentee from duty. Petitioner has not refuted the aforesaid averments. In the circumstances, no legally enforceable right of the petitioner stands violated. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. May 15, 2009 (rana)