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
2 paragraphs · 213 wordsRajiv Sharma, J.—Case of the Petitioner, in a nutshell, is that though he had completed 8 years of service on 31.3.2000, he has been regularized in the month of December, 2002. In other words, his submission is that since he was engaged in November, 1989 and had completed 240 days continuously for a period of 10 years, he was to be given work charge status on 31.3.2000. Respondents have not denied that Petitioner had continuously worked for 10 years and had completed 240 days in each calendar year. In view of this, case of the Petitioner was required to be considered for conferment of work charge status, as per P.V. Papanna and others Vs. K. Padmanabhaiah, immediately after completion of ten years.
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for conferment of work charge status immediately after the completion of 10 years of service with effect from November, 1989 in view of law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. and Others, and State of H.P. and Others Vs. Gehar Singh, within a period of two months, after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the Petitioner. No costs.
