Prakash Chand vs State of H.P. and Others

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

(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the Respondents to consider the case of Petitioner in light of ratio laid down in Mool Raj Upadhaya v. State of H.P. for giving him work charged status/regularization with all consequential benefits such as; seniority and arrears of pay etc. as and when he completed 10 years of service with 240 days as a daily waged Peon in view of the facts that the Petitioner was engaged by the Respondent department as daily waged Peon on 1.1.1991 and he completed his 10 years of service as daily waged Peon with 240 days in each calendar year on 1.1.2001 but he has been given work charged status/regularization on 29.8.2007, which is after the delay of 6 years.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the case is squarely covered by the decisions of the Apex Court in P.V. Papanna and others Vs. K. Padmanabhaiah,

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 judgment, 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 copy of the judgment, referred to above by the Petitioner.

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