Leela Dass vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

(A) That a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to give work charge status/regularize the services of the Petitioner after completion of 10 years of daily waged service and monitory benefits with retrospective effect to the Petitioner.

(B) That the Respondents may kindly be directed to grant all consequential benefits after granting seniority to the Petitioner.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the case is squarely covered by the decisions of the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. and Others, and of this Court in Gauri Dutt and Ors. v. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366.

Learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioner submits that he would file 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. Thereafter, the matter will be duly considered by the second Respondent in the light of the judgments, referred to above and appropriate action in accordance with law will be taken within another four months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a copy of this judgment and the copies of the judgments, referred to above by the Petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.