Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWPOA/10224/2008 on 31 December 2011
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP(T) No. 10224 of 2008.
Decided on: 31.12.2010. Ram Paul. …Petitioner.
-Versus-
State of Himachal Pradesh and another.
…Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr.
K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate.
For the respondents. : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Deputy Advocate
General with Mr. R.P. Singh,
Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral):
Petitioner was appointed as Beldar on contractual basis in Goldmine Project. The duration of the contract was two years. On completion of two years’ duration in Goldmine Project, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Petitioner was asked to give his option, if he desired to work as a daily wager against the available sericulture work in Sericulture Division, Ghumarwin. He did not give his option as per the contents of the reply. The reply was filed by the respondent-State on 16.03.2004. Since the appointment of the petitioner was for a period of two years, no further directions can be issued to the respondents to re-engage the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner was asked to give his option for appointment as Beldar in Sericulture Division, Ghumarwin. He has declined the same.
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. High Court of H.P. 2010:HHC:13266 ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 11:58:49 :::CIS
2. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.
(Rajiv Sharma)
Judge January 04, 2011. (bhupender)
High Court of H.P. 2010:HHC:13266 ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 11:58:49 :::CIS
High Court of H.P. 2010:HHC:13266 ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 11:58:49 :::CIS