IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.: 2849 of 2008. Decided on: 22.5.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Madan Lal … Petitioner. Versus Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (B&R) North, Dharamshala and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate vice Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, A.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The petitioner was appointed as Beldar in Jawalamukhi Sub Division under Dehra Division in the year 1981. The case of the petitioner is that he was retrenched in the month of August, 1990. He was permitted to work only for fifteen days in the year 1992. He approached the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal against the retrenchment by way of Original Application No. 752 of 1992. The learned Tribunal directed the Chief Engineer (North) HP PWD to look into the matter within a period of three months. The Chief Engineer decided the matter on 16.11.1992. The petitioner was directed to be engaged on muster roll basis as Beldar as a fresh case. He was not held entitled for any claim of his previous daily 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 wage services. The petitioner has assailed this order dated 16.11.1992 whereby his earlier service has not been counted for the purpose of seniority. Mr. Rajesh Verma appearing vice Mr. Ranjan Sharma has strenuously argued that the services rendered by the petitioner before his fresh engagement is required to be counted for the purpose of seniority. He then contended that the petitioner’s services were illegally terminated in the years 1990 and 1992. According to him, his client had been visiting the higher authorities seeking his engagement. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General on the basis of the manday’s chart had argued that the petitioner had abandoned his job in the month of April, 1990 and thereafter, in the month of August, 1992. He then contended that the petitioner had remained absent from 1990 to 1992 except for fifteen days. He has justified the action of the Chief Engineer of not granting him the benefit of the previous services which he had rendered before his re-engagement as per orders passed by the Chief Engineer. I have heard the parties and have perused the record carefully. The petitioner was engaged in the year 1981. He had worked upto August, 1990. According to the petitioner, he was retrenched without following due process of law in the month of August, 1990. He did not challenge this action of the respondents. He has not worked from August, 1990 to 1992 except for fifteen days. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner had abandoned his job on two occasions i.e. in August, 1990 and in the 3 month of April, 1992. It has come in the reply that the petitioner after abandoning his job had started working in some shop. He has approached the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal, as noticed above. The Chief Engineer has decided the matter on 16.11.1992. He has directed the re-engagement of the petitioner as a fresh case. He has not relied upon the version put forth by the petitioner that it was not a case of any abandonment. In case the petitioner was aggrieved by his retrenchment on two occasions, he should have approached the authorities in writing. He has not placed any material on record to prove that he had approached the authorities for redressal of his grievance. The petitioner is not working as per the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties after 1.10.1997. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the period rendered by the petitioner before his fresh engagement cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority. The order passed by the Chief Engineer dated 16.11.1992 is self contained. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 22, 2009. (cr)