CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Murari Lal vs State of Himachal Pradesh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 10 January 2011 · Citation: (2011) 01 SHI CK 0108

HON’BLE JUDGES
Surinder Singh, J
CASE NUMBER
C.W.P. No. 1953 of 2009
Ask AI about this case

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

8 paragraphs · 350 words

Surinder Singh, J.—By means of the present petition, petitioner seeks following reliefs:-

(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to give work-charge status to the petitioner being a mason instead of Beldar and Annexure P1 may kindly be modified to the extent that the petitioner is given work charged status as mason.

(ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to decide the representation (Annexure P3) of the petitioner.

(iii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to give the work charge status as mason to the petitioner from 31.3.2004 and also to grant salary and allowances of work charge status from 31.3.2004.

2.

The petitioner was a daily-wager and worked as mason w.e.f. April 1995 to November, 1995 for 240 days and then beldar w.e.f. 1.12.1995 to 31.3.1998 in the respondent Department. Precisely, he worked as mason till his regularization as on 4.1.2007. The petitioner submitted his representation to the respondent-department mentioning the aforesaid details and sought work-charge status against the post of mason. An opportunity was accorded to the respondents to decide his representation vide order dated 1.11.2011 but no decision has been conveyed as yet.

3.

Vide their reply to the petition, the respondents have resisted the claims of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not covered under the policy of regularization framed in Mool Raj Upadhaya case, as amended from time to time.

4.

The point in issue is no more res integra as it stands already settled by this Court in Gauri Dutt and others versus State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366. Therefore, it is directed that respondents shall examine and take a final decision within 3 months from the production of certified copy of this judgment in view of the Gauri Dutt''s case (supra). If the petitioner is found entitled all consequential benefits arising there from be released to him within two months thereafter.

5.

The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.