Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/8051/2021 on 30 December 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 30th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,
CHIEF JUTICE
&
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.8051 of 2021
Between:-
JAI CHAND
SON OF LATE SH. HARI DAS,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUCHHRI,
P.O. JEORI, TEHSIL RAMPUR,
DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
…..PETITIONER
(BY MR. ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
HPSEB LTD. THROUGH
ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
VIDYUT BHAWAN, KUMAR HOUSE,
SHIMLA-4.
2.
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
GANWI CONSTN. CIRCLE, HPSEB,
JEORI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
…..RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. VIVEKANAND NEGI, ADVOCATE, VICE MR. ANIL
KUMAR GOD, ADVOCATE)
________________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
In this writ petition filed on 07.11.2021, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents-Board to grant him work charged status as Carpenter with effect from 08.03.1999.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis as Carpenter in the respondent-Board during the year 1985. His services were regularized in the year 1999 as Beldar. The grievance of the petitioner is that his services were required to be regularized/ brought in work charge status as Carpenter during the year 1999 and not as Beldar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment dated 19.09.2013, rendered in CWP No. 6774/2013-H, titled Durga Bahadur and others Versus HPSEB and another.
3. The petitioner is presently 62 years old and has already retired from the service. He has preferred the instant writ petition more than twenty two years later after accrual of cause of action to him. Therefore, we do not deem it appropriate to advert to the merits of the matter, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we close this petition by reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents-competent authority by filing representation within three weeks from today and in case such representation is made, the respondents- competent authority shall decide the same, in accordance with law, within two months from the date of its receipt alongwith copy of this order.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(Mohammad Rafiq)
Chief Justice
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua)
Judge December 30, 2021 (R.Atal)