Satpal Singh vs State of H.P. and Others

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

(i) That a writ of mandamus may very kindly be issued to the Respondents thereby directing them to grant work charge status to the Petitioner on completion of 8 years of continuous service as daily waged work inspector i.e. in the year 2002, on the basis of annexure P-1.

(ii) That the Respondents may be directed to give all the consequential benefits/arrears to the Petitioner in a time bound manner along with prevailing rate of interest.

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.