AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 210 wordsKurian Joseph, C.J.—The petition has been filed with the following prayers:
(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. due date i.e. January, 2002.
(ii) That the respondents may further be directed to give all consequential benefits w.e.f. January, 2002 till the date of regularization with interest @ 18% per annum.
It has been submitted that the petitioner is similarly situated, as the petitioners covered in Annexure P-2 judgment-Nepalis in whose case the judgment has already been implemented. In case the petitioner is similarly situated person, he cannot be discriminated. There will be a direction to the second respondent to look into the matter and take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law in light of the aforesaid judgment Annexure P-2 within one month from the date of production of copy of the judgment alongwith copy of writ petition. The learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General submits that the LPA is pending before this Court. The petitioner undertakes that he will abide by the outcome of the judgment rendered in LPA and the implementation may be made only subject to the outcome of the LPA.
The writ petitions stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
Copy dasti.