Himachal Pradesh High Court
WRIT PETITION 10211 of 2012 on 14 January 1995
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 No.10211 of 2012-B
Decided on : 16.5. 2014
Sukaram Chand
… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
…Respondents
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?[1] No
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vasu Sood, Advocate, vice Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate.For the Respondents : Mr. R.S. Verma, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Dy. A.G.
Sanjay Karol, J.(oral)
CMP No.6634/2014
Allowed. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for hearing today itself. Application stands disposed of.
CWP No.10211/2012
Petitioner has filed this petition mainly with the following prayer:- “(i) Directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 14.1.1995 instead of 14.1.1998 on the analogy of Shri Som Dass son of Shri Parma Nand working in the same department as that of the petitioner, in view of Annexure P-5 with all consequential benefits including seniority, continuity, annual increments, earned leave and all other consequential benefits including arrears accruing thereon on this account.” service of the petitioner w.e.f. 14.1.1995 instead of 14.1.1998 on the analogy of Shri Som Dass son of Shri Parma Nand working in the same department as that of the petitioner, in view of Annexure P-5 with all consequential benefits including seniority, continuity, annual increments, earned leave and all other consequential benefits including arrears accruing thereon on this account.”
2. It is submitted that the matter has been considered by the State Administrative Tribunal and the order of Tribunal was challenged before this court and this court has dismissed the same, as can be seen from Annexure P-3 judgment in CWP No.420 of 2006. It is further submitted that said judgment has been accepted and implemented by the State. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is similarly situated person, like the petitioner in the said case. The petitioner has submitted Annexure P-4 to first respondent. There will be a direction to first respondent to look into all the aspects of the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law and justice without discriminating the petitioner. This will be done within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order alongwith the copy of writ petition.
The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
Copy dasti.
May 16, 2014 (KS)
(Sanjay Karol), J.