CWP No.1542 of 2009 19.6.2009 Present: Mr. K.S. Patyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.R. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.2. Mr. M.A. Khan, Central Government Counsel for respondent No.4. The petitioner was engaged on daily wages as Sweeper vide memorandum dated 15.1.1990. The precise case of the petitioner is that he was harassed by the Officers/officials of the H.P.S.E.B. for his trade union activities. He was not permitted to discharge his duties from 1996. He approached this Court by way of CWP No. 1959/1996. It was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 3.12.1996. Copy of judgment was supplied by Mr. K.S. Patyal during the course of hearing. The judgment dated 3.12.1996 reads thus: “This writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner wants employment in the H.P. State Electricity Board which falls within the provision of Administrative Tribunals Act. Hence, he may seek remedy before the Tribunal or elsewhere. The second prayer of the petitioner is that he wants the Court to issue a direction to the respondents to provide him job anywhere in Himachal Pradesh or elsewhere in Uttar Pradesh. Such prayer cannot be granted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The third prayer directing the respondents to pay heavy cost to the petitioner is consequential. Hence, it need not be considered as first and second prayers cannot be granted. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.” In sequel to judgment dated 3.12.1996, the petitioner had not approached the H.P. Administrative Tribunal rather he filed representation to the Chairman of the respondent-Board on 31.12.1996 for redressal of his grievance. The present petition has been filed on 14.5.2009. The petitioner has not explained the delay from 1996 till the filing of the petition. The petitioner should have approached the Court within a reasonable period from the date of accrual of cause of action in the year 1996. It is apparent that he had also filed writ petition, as noticed above, for same or similar relief. It stood decided on 3.12.1996. He cannot re-agitate the same issues in subsequent petition. The present petition is also barred by res-judicata. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well as res-judicata. No costs. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. (Rajiv Sharma), J. June 19, 2009. (cr)