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
6 paragraphs · 237 wordsSunil Gaur, J
In the above-captioned three petitions, the claim of petitioners is that they were appointed on compassionate ground and they have rendered service of about 16 years. It is case of petitioners that they had sought regularization of their service vide various Representations and the last Representation was made by petitioners to second respondent on 30th January, 2017, which was followed by Reminder of 9th March, 2017.
With the consent of learned counsel for parties, these three petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The grievance of petitioners in these three petitions is that their Representations have not been dealt with by second respondent.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of these three petitions with permission to petitioners to make concise Representations to second respondent within a week and if such Representations are received by second respondent, then the said Representations be effectively considered by second respondent by passing a speaking order thereon, within a period of eight weeks and the fate of the Representations be conveyed to petitioners within a week thereafter, so that petitioners may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.
With aforesaid directions, the above-captioned three petitions and the applications are disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti to counsels for petitioners and the second respondent.
