Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/11509/2011 on 28 December 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 11509 of 2011-A.
Date of Decision 28th 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.
1. Jeet Ram son of Shri Devi Dass, resident of Village Seri, Post Office and Tehsil, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.
2. Sh. Prakash son of Shri Labhu Ram, resident of village Bagwala, Post Office Manpura, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H. P.
3. Sh. Bhagat Ram son of Shri Ram Rakha, resident of village Jhandian, PO Mittian, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
….Petitioners.
Versus.
1. State of H.P. through Secretary (Forests) Government of H.P. Shimla-2.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Shimla, H. P.
3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
….Respondents. Civil Writ Petition under Article 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 Petitioners: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________________
Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (oral)
The petitioners claim work charge status/regularization with all consequential benefits from the High Court of H.P. 2011:HHC:11650-DB ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:12:23 :::CIS
date they 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. Petitioners submit that they would file appropriate representation(s) furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for them 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 petitioners concerned 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 28, 2011
(Dev Darshan Sud), (R/jai)
Judge
High Court of H.P. 2011:HHC:11650-DB ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:12:23 :::CIS