Hari Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

L. Narayana Swamy, CJ

The prayer of the petitioner, in the instant writ petition, is for providing employment to one of his family members by respondent­Company, on the basis of an agreement entered into between them in the year 1998.

It is contended that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties, the respondent­Company will provide employment to one of the members of the family(ies) whose land has been acquired by the Company. The employment has not been provided to the family member of the petitioner in terms of the said agreement, hence, a prayer has been made for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent­Company to provide employment to the family member of the petitioner.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the documents annexed with the writ petition.

The agreement is stated to have been entered into between the parties in the year 1998. If the said agreement assures the petitioner to provide an employment to his family member, it is for him to approach the respondents. Without there being any rejection by the authorities concerned, it is not appropriate for the petitioner to approach this Court directly before approaching the respondents for redressal of his grievances. As on today, since there is no rejection, the cause of action has not accrued in favour of the petitioner.

Under these circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned respondents, who are said to have been entered into the agreement in the year 1998, for redressal of his grievances. In case his grievances are not redressed, it is for him to approach the appropriate authority by way of application/representation/petition, if so advised.

The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.