Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/11541/2011 on 29 December 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA.
CWP No. 11541 of 2011-E
Decided on: 29.12.2011
Gurnam Singh, S/o Sh. Uttam Singh, R/o Village Sakari, P.O.
Sakari Dargia, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. presently serving as Peon in the office of Additional Director Agriculture, North Zone, Dharamshala, District Kangra, HP.
....Petitioner
Versus
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.
1. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2.
2. Director, Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.
3. Additional Director Agriculture, North Zone, Dharammshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. ....Respondents Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General, Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General and Mr.
Ramesh
Thakur,
Assistant Advocate General.
Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral)
The
petitioner
claims
work
charge status/regularization with all consequential benefits from the date he completed 10 years of continued service. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC
316.
2. The learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioner submits that he would file an appropriate representation furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for him to do so. The second respondent/competent authority will look into the matter, verify the facts and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, in light also of the decision, referred to above, within a period of another four months. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the judgment, referred to above and a copy of the writ petition, while submitting the representation.
3. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph),
Chief Justice.
December 29, 2011 (Justice Dev Dasrshan Sud), ( ms/hl) Judge.