High CourtsDivision Bench

Sh. Pradeep Kumar vs State of H.P.

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 6 January 2012 · Citation: (2012) 01 SHI CK 0209

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kurian Joseph, C.J · V.K. Ahuja, J
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 11901 of 2011-A
Ask AI about this case

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 · 180 words

Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The petitioner claims work charge status/regularization with all consequential benefits from the date he completed 10 years of continued service. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. and Others, .

2.

The learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioner submits that he would file an 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. The second respondent/competent authority will look into the matter, verify the facts and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, in light also of the decision, referred to above, within a period of another four months. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the judgment, referred to above and a copy of the writ petition, while submitting the representation.

3.

The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.