Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWPOA/8625/2008 on 28 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.
CWP (T) No.8625 of 2008
28.12.2010 Present: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
It is not in dispute that petitioner was engaged on daily wages with the respondent department. He remained absent from July, 1997 upto September, 2000. Vide instructions dated 22nd June, 2000, Superintending Engineer, 2nd Circle, H.P PWD, Shimla, had directed the Executive Engineer, Theog, to implement the instructions with regard to the re-engagement of certain employees. Since, these instructions were not implemented in letter and spirit, petitioner approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. OA No.2491 of 2000, filed by the petitioner was decided in terms of order dated 22nd March, 2002 (Annexure A-6). A direction was issued to the Engineer-in-Chief to decide the petitioner’s case within a period of six weeks. In terms of impugned order dated 28th June, 2002, petitioner’s case stands decided by Engineer-in- Chief, PWD, Himachal Pradesh.
2. Petitioner’s case primarily stands rejected on the ground that no medical certificate from any Government institution/establishment was produced by him in support of his claim. Now, this cannot be a ground of rejection of the High Court of H.P. 2010:HHC:12975 ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:12:53 :::CIS
petitioner’s case particularly when the Engineer-in-Chief did not find the medical certificate placed on record by the petitioner to be either forged, false or fabricated. Further my attention has been invited to the directions issued by the Minister, Public Works Department (Annexure A-3), to favourably consider the petitioner’s case. These directions have also not been complied with.
3. Consequently, Annexure A-7 is quashed. Engineer- in-Chief, PWD, Himachal Pradesh is directed to consider the petitioner’s case afresh by affording adequate opportunity of hearing. It shall be open to the petitioner to place such other material as he may so desire, in support of his contention before the appropriate authority. This shall be done positively within a period of two months from today. Respondents shall decide the petitioner’s case within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
4. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol),
Judge
December 28, 2010
cs
High Court of H.P. 2010:HHC:12975 ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:12:53 :::CIS