Yagyadev vs State Of H.P. And Others

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

The prayer of the petitioner, in the instant writ petition, is for providing employment to one of his family members by respondent­ Corporation, 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 respondent­Corporation will provide employment to one of the members of the family(ies) whose land has been acquired by the Corporation. 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 respondent­Corporation 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 respondent i.e. respondent No.3 within a period of two weeks from today and the said respondent is directed to consider and decide the same within a period of four weeks thereafter. In case the grievances of the petitioner 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, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

Copy dasti.