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
5 paragraphs · 198 wordsManoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Mr. J.S. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits that the order dated 11.05.2017 passed by Writ Court in WPSS No. 1969 of 2011 has been substantially complied with and services of all the petitioners have now been regularized, except petitioner no. 6.
Regarding petitioner no. 6, Mr. J.S. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties has informed the Court that since petitioner, as a daily wager, was engaged only w.e.f. 01.04.1994, while cut-off-date is 29.06.1991, therefore, his claim for regularization was considered and rejected.
Since, all the petitioners have been regularized, except petitioner no. 6 as his case is not covered by the applicable regularization Rules and Mr. T.C. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioners also does not dispute the submission made on behalf of the opposite parties that all other petitioners have been regularized, except petitioner no. 6, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this contempt petition pending.
Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed by recording the statement made by Mr. J.S. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties on record. Notices issued to the opposite parties are hereby discharged.