IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 8918 of 2008 Decided on: 1st December, 2010 Chet Ram Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E.B. & others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge For the Petitioner: Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate ______________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral) The writ petition has been filed mainly with the following prayer:- “Directing the respondents to allow the applicant to join his duties in pursuance to Annexure A-1, more particularly respondent No. 2, who has flatly refused to accept the joining of the applicant, with all consequential benefits.” 2. Learned counsel for the Board submits that the petitioner had not completed 240 days. It is also submitted that the disputed facts cannot be gone into in the writ petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner had been engaged for project and on completion of project only, the petitioner was duly dis-engaged. Some of the above contentions are seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that even if the petitioner had not completed 240 days, dis-engagement should only be on the basis of last come first go. Still further, it is submitted that in case there was subsequently work available, the petitioner should have been allowed to continue preferably to others. Third submission is that many juniors to the petitioner in Annexure A-1 list have since been re-engaged either pursuant to the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal or on account of re-consideration of the case by the Board itself. 3. Though ordinarily the petitioner should have also been relegated to pursue his remedy before the Industrial Tribunal, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceeding or litigation, we are of the view that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to approach the first respondent. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of as follows. 4. In the event of the petitioner approaching the first respondent, pointing out the instances of juniors to the petitioner having been re-engaged, a similar treatment shall be extended to the petitioner herein also. Needful, as above, shall be done by the first respondent/competent authority under the first respondent, within four months from the receipt of the representation alongwith the copy of this judgment. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice ( Justice V.K. Ahuja), December 1, 2010(K) Judge