2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.9832 of 2008 Decided on: 11.5.2011 Muni Lal Shandil ……….Petitioner. Versus H.P. Marketing Board & others ……….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner. : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. G.S. Rathore, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General for respondent No. 4. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in the respondent-department. A criminal case was instituted against him. He was acquitted by the trial Court. The State preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal, which was also dismissed. 2. In all fairness, once the petitioner has been acquitted, his case for re-engagement should have been considered. In view of this, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation before the respondent No. 2, within four weeks, alongwith certified copies of the trial Court judgment and the Appellate Court judgment. The same shall be decided in accordance with law by the Director, Agriculture-cum-Chairman, H.P. Marketing Board, Nalagarh House, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. 2 Shimla, within a further period of six weeks, after production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. He shall pass a speaking order. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. Copy dasti on usual terms. (Rajiv Sharma Judge May 11, 2011. (hl)