Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/11558/2011 on 29 December 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 11558 of 2011
Date of Decision 29th December, 2011
________________________________________________________
Shri Rajiv Kumar Sharma, son of late Sh. Rattan Lal Sharma, resident of Agastya Niwas, Haripur, Tehsil Sunder Nagar, District Mandi H.P. presently working as Agricultural Extension Officer, Development Block, Nagrota Bagwan, Tehsil and District Kangra HP on regular basis.
….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 Principal Secretary (Agriculture) with Headquarter at Shimla, HP.
2. The Director of Agriculture at Shimla HP
3. The Secretary Finance to the Government of H.P.,Shimla-2
4. The Secretary Finance to the Government of H.P., Shimla-2
5. The Secretary Personnel to the Govt. of H.P. with Headquarters at Shimla HP.
….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, J. ________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner:
Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass, Sood, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General High Court of H.P. 2011:HHC:11726-DB ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2026 23:14:45 :::CIS
2 and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General. __________________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (oral)
The petitioner claims work charge status 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 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(s), while submitting the representation(s).
3. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.
(Justice Kurian Joseph)
Chief Justice.
December 29, 2011
(Dev Darshan Sud), ms
Judge High Court of H.P. 2011:HHC:11726-DB ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2026 23:14:45 :::CIS