Raghu Ram vs State of H.P. and Others

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

(i) Issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondent-department to consider the case of the Petitioner and grant him work charged status w.e.f. January, 2002 when the Petitioner had completed 8 years of regular daily waged service in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya v. State of H.P. and Ghere Singh v. State of H.P. and Ors. (1994) Supp. (2) SCC 316 as well as by this Hon''ble High Court in Rakesh Kumar v. State of H.P.

(ii) Issue writ of mandamus for direction to the Respondent-department to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization with all consequential service benefits, w.e.f. the day the Petitioner completed 8 years of service as daily wager Beldar i.e. January, 2002.

The Petitioner claims work charge status/regularization/consequential benefits on completion of eight years of continuous service as daily waged worker. According to the Petitioner, the issue is covered in his favour by the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar v. State of H.P. and Ors.

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.

It is for the Respondents to examine the matter. We are informed that the State has filed an appeal against the above mentioned decision. Therefore, it is made clear that the implementation of the judgment referred to above would depend on the outcome of the decision of the Apex Court. The needful action, after verifying the facts will be taken within a period of two months from the date of the judgment of the Apex Court.

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