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
7 paragraphs · 255 words.
Satyen Vaidya, J
By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of following substantive relief:-
“ i. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners and respondent may kindly be directed to grant regularization of service after completion of eight years of service in favour of the petitioners along with all consequential benefits.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1853 of 2009, titled as Arpana Bali vs. State of H.P. & Ors., 10th April, 2013. She further submits that petitioner shall be content in case the respondent/State is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in a time bound manner in the light of judgment ibid.
Prayer being innocuous is not opposed.
Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of without making any comments on the merits of the case of the petitioner. It is directed that respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Arpana Bali’s case (supra), within eight weeks from today and will decide the same by passing a speaking order. In case petitioner is found similarly situated as petitioner in Arpna Bali’s case (supra), she shall also be granted the same benefits as granted to petitioner(s) in above referred case. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.