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
13 paragraphs · 379 wordsKurian Joseph, C.J.—The writ petitions have been filed with the following prayers:
C.W.P. No. 5303 of 2010
(i) Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents-department to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.1994, for all intents and purposes as per the policy of State Government.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents-department to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization with all consequential service benefits, with effect from the day the petitioner completed ten years of service as daily wager on the post of forest worker i.e. w.e.f. the year 1994.
C.W.P. No. 5308 of 2010
(i) Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents-department to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.1995, accordingly for all intents and purposes as per the policy of State Government.
(ii)Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents-department to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization with all consequential service benefits, with effect from the day the petitioner completed ten years of service as daily wager on the post of forest worker i.e. w.e.f. the year 1995.
C.W.P. No. 5309 of 2010
(i) Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents-department to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him work charge status w.e.f. 1.10.2005 as per the policy dated 6.5.2000.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents-department to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization with all consequential service benefits, with effect from the day the petitioner completed ten years of service as daily wager on the post of Beldar i.e. w.e.f. the year 1994.
According to the petitioners, their case is covered by the decision of Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya v. State of H.P. and Ors. 1994 Supp (2) S.C.C. 313 and the decision rendered by this Court in Gauri Dutt and Ors. v. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366. The petitioners may file individual representations before the first respondent, in which case the matter will be duly examined by the first respondent and appropriate action in the matter, in accordance with law, will be taken.
With these observations, all the writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
Copy Dasti.