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
3 paragraphs · 164 wordsKurian Joseph, C.J. 1. The Petitioner claims work charge status from the date he completed eight years of service. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court dated 28th July, 2010 rendered in Rakesh Kumar v. State of H.P. and Ors. CWP No. 2735 of 2010.
The learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority.The Petitioner may file appropriate representation(s) furnishing all factual details before the second Respondent within a period of one month from today. The second Respondent/competent authority will look into the matter, verify the facts and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, in the light also of the decision referred to above within a period of another four months. The Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the judgment referred to in this judgment while submitting the representation(s).
The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.
