DHARMENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition following reliefs have been claimed:

(2.) Against termination of his services, he filed Original Application No. 3667 of 2006 in the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which was disposed of vide judgment dated 4.1.2008 with the direction to release the due and admissible amount payable to him. Since this judgment of the learned erstwhile Tribunal was not complied with by the respondents, on abolition of the Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition in this Court which was registered as COPC No. 6/2009. Since the amount due and payable to the petitioner was disbursed during the pendency of the contempt petition, therefore, a coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the contempt petition vide order dated 31.7.2009. As it was further urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the post against which the petitioner was appointed as driver on contract basis is still lying vacant and irrespective of his being acquitted from the charge, he has not been re-instated, learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner may approach the respondents by filing an appropriate representation and that if any such representation is filed, the respondents will consider the same sympathetically in accordance with law.

(3.) However, the petitioner submitted the representation to the respondents and when it was not decided, he approached this Court again by filing CWP No. 1259 of 2010 with a prayer to issue a direction to the respondents to renew the contract of the petitioner and release all admissible consequential benefits to him. The representation made by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by learned Single Judge in Contempt petition No. 6 of 2009 on 31.7.2009 was also annexed to the writ petition No. 1259 of 2010 as Annexure P/3 and as the representation of the petitioner was pending consideration before the respondents, therefore, the writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 6.4.2010, vide judgment annexure P/2 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation with notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.