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
5 paragraphs · 203 wordsKurian Joseph, C. J.
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 judgments of this Court rendered in LPA No. 36 of 2010, Sita Ram v. State and Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P. and Ors. CWP No. 4550 of 2010.
Learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioner submits that he would file an 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.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Respondent concerned to examine the matter, after verifying the facts, in the light of the judgments 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 copies of the judgments referred to above.
The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.