IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) Nos. 7104 and 8095 of 2008 Decided on: 28.10.2010. 1. CWP(T) No. 7104 of 2008 Bhagat Ram and others ….. Petitioners. Versus State of H.P.& others. … Respondents. 2. CWP(T) No. 8095 of 2008 Bodh Raj Sharma and others ….. Petitioners. Versus State of H.P.& others. ..... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr Vishal Bindra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 2. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): CWP(T) No. 7104 of 2008 The writ petition has been filed with following prayers:- “(i) That the respondent No.4 may be restrained from terminating the services of the applicants till final disposal of this original application and till such time the applicants are absorbed in other institutions like respondent No.2. (ii) That the respondent No.1 may be directed to either have the work transferred -2- to the respondent Union which has been transferred to respondent No. 2 or in the alternative to have the services of the applicants absorbed in other institutions/Govt. Departments etc. etc. (iii) The respondents may be directed to give employment to the applicants by absorbing/adjustment on the alternate jobs in the government Departments, Governments undertakings/undertaking etc. etc. as the applicants have now become over age and there is no chance of the applicants of getting employment elsewhere. 2. In reply it is stated as follows: “That the present application has been filed by the applicants against the policy decision taken by the State Govt. whereby sub-wholesalers have been abolished in the fertilizer distribution system in the State of H.P. And henceforth only the wholesaler and Retailer will operate the supply of fertilizers to the farmers in the entire state. The sub whole dealers being middle channel, was burdening the State exchequer in lacs of rupees plus 10% commission charges on account of unnecessary transportation charges, loading and unloading of fertilizer at number of places. With this decision, the fertilizer prices have come down and farmers of the State will get fertilizers on cheaper rates as compared to earlier rates. The state Govt. is fully competent to take such a policy decision which is in the larger public interest. The services of the applicants can not be transferred to the respondent no.2 because -3- they were neither engaged by the State Govt. nor there was any privity of contract between the State Govt. and the applicants for transferring their services to respondent No.2. Hence the applicants are not entitled to any relief and present OA deserves to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Tribunal. CWP (T) No. 8095 of 2008 3. The writ petition has been filed with following prayers: (i) That the respondents No.4 may kindly be restrained from terminating the services of the applicants till final disposal of this original application and till such time the applicants are absorbed in other institutions like respondent No.2. (ii) That the respondent No.1 may be directed to either have the work transferred to the respondent Union which has been transferred to respondent No. 2 or in the alternative to have the services of the applicants absorbed in other institutions/Govt. Departments etc. etc. (iii) The respondents may be directed to give employment to the applicants by absorbing/adjustment on the alternate jobs in the Government Departments, Governments Undertakings/ etc. etc. as the applicants have now become over age and there is no chance of the applicants of getting employment elsewhere. 4. In reply at para 6(i) it is stated as follows:- -4- “It may, however, be submitted that the applications were not provided employment by the respondents and the State Government, is not in any way concerned with their services. (ii) That in reply to this subpara, it may be submitted that the state Government is fully empowered to take policy decision for transferring the fertilizer business to the respondent No.2. No grievance can be raised by any of the Co-operative societies who had been undertaking this business in the recent past. The matter has been throughly examined by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh while dealing with the grievance of Co-operative societies in its judgment dated 28th September, 2001. the societies were not required to be provided any opportunity before transferring the fertilizer business to the Himfed(respondent No.2). (iii) That in reply to this subpara, it may be submitted that the respondent No.4. Union is at liberty to retrench the services of the applicants in case, the union has no work for the applicants. Their services can be terminated by the respondent Union in accordance with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (iv)That the contents of this sub para are admitted to the extent that the applicants have been salesmen in accordance with the provisions of the Service Rules of the respondent Union. -5- (v) That the contents of this sub para do not pertain to the replying respondent, hence requires no reply. (vi) That the respondent union is at liberty to start any other business in consonance with its objectives as envisaged in the registered bye-laws of the respondent union. (vii) That the impugned policy decision had been taken by the State Government in the larger interest of the farmers of the State. The three tier system of fertilizer distribution had been modified by eliminating the sub wholesalers and now the wholesaler i.e. Himfed will directly distribute fertilizer to the retailers/farmers of the State. With this decision, the margin of sub wholesaler has been passed over to the Retailers/Farmers thereby causing reduction in the fertilizer price.” 5. In view of the stand taken in the replies as above, in case the petitioners have still any surviving grievance left, if will be open to them to approach either the first respondent or work out their relief before an appropriate Forum. In either case it is made clear that in the event of the petitioners making such an attempt within two months the same shall not be turned down on the only ground of delay since the petitioners have been prosecuting their grievances before this Court in the writ petitions. -6- 6. With these observations, petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. ( Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (V.K. Sharma), Judge. October 28, 2010 (LSP/VT)