Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/11585/2011 of KANHAIYA LAL Vs STATE on 29 December 2011
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 11585 of 2011-I Decided on: 29th December, 2011. Kanhaiya lal son of Shri Rohali Ram, resident of village Bhardwan, Post Office Kanaid, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., presently working as Drawing Master in Government Middle School
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA.
CWP No. 11585 of 2011-I
Decided on: 29[th] December, 2011.
Kanhaiya lal son of Shri Rohali Ram, resident of village Bhardwan, Post Office Kanaid, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., presently working as Drawing Master in Government Middle School Shillimehla, under complex GSSS Choeg, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P.
Versus
…Petitioner.
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 Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2.
2. Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-1.
…Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge.
For the petitioner : Mr. R.S. Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral)
The petitioner claims the benefit of ad hoc service followed by regular service for the purpose of pension and increments. According to the petitioner, the issue is covered in his favour by the judgment of this Court rendered in LPA No.36 of 2010, Sita Ram vs. State.
2. 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.
3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent concerned to examine the matter, after verifying the facts, in the light of the judgment referred to above and take appropriate action thereon within a period of four months from the date of the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and the copy of the judgment referred to above.
4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.
(Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice
29[th] December, 2011. (kck)
(Justice Dev Darshan Sud), Judge.