Himachal Pradesh High Court
CIVIL APPEAL 13307 of 2008 on 31 December 2010
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.
31.12.2010 Present:- Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3.
The main prayer in the petition is that the appointment/regularisation of respondent No.4 as regular Class-IV Sweeper made on 21.10.2005 by respondent No.3 and by respondent No.2 vide order dated 19.10.2005 may be quashed. The connected relief in the petition is that respondents No.1 to 3 may be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner, who is senior and give him appointment as regular Class-IV Sweeper w.e.f. 21.10.2005 on which date the respondent No.4 has been made regular with consequential benefits such as seniority etc.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents No. 1 to 3 have taken the stand that benefit was wrongly given to respondent No.4 and, therefore, such benefit has been withdrawn. In this situation, the petitioner will have to show his case independently for appointment/regularisation. The petitioner in the petition projected his case mainly on the ground that since he is senior to respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 has been regularised, therefore, petitioner is also entitled to regularisation. The respondents No.1 to 3 have withdrawn the regularisation of respondent No.4 as per submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, hence foundation on which the petitioner has built his case, has been demolished by withdrawal of regularisation of respondent No.4. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner may be permitted to file a representation to respondent No.2 within reasonable time and direction may be given to respondent No.2 to decide such representation with a speaking order within some fixed time frame. In these circumstances, let the petitioner make a representation to respondent No.2 regarding his grievance within a period of four weeks from today along with a copy of this judgment and on receipt of representation, respondent No.2 shall decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order within another two months. The petition stands disposed of.
December 31, 2010
(GR)
( Kuldip Singh ) Judge