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
3 paragraphs · 294 wordsDeepak Gupta, J.—The case of the Petitioner is that vide order of the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal dated 2.3.2006 he had been granted work-charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2002 and further his arrears were required to be paid within 3 months. The Petitioner alleged that this order had not been obeyed and the only prayer made in the petition was that the Respondents be directed to comply with the order of the erstwhile Tribunal dated 2.3.2006.
In reply the stand of the Respondents was that they had filed a review petition before the learned Tribunal which after abolition of the Tribunal stood transferred to this Court and on transfer was listed as Civil Review Petition No. (T) 103 of 2008.
On the last date, I had called for the records of the aforesaid review petition and I find that this review petition has been dismissed on 29th October, 2006. Therefore, it is obvious that the Petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed by him. The writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the Respondents shall comply with the order of the Tribunal dated 2.3.2006 in Original Application No. 2979 of 2004 grant him work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2002 and shall work out the monetary benefits due and payable to the Petitioner and pay the same to him along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date when the amount fell due till the date of payment. This amount be paid to the Petitioner on or before 31st May, 2011. In case this amount is not paid on or before the said date, interest shall be payable @ 12% per annum instead of 6% per annum. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
