Shayam Singh 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. 1.1.1991, and regularize his service as per the then existing policy of State Government. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent-department to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization with all consequential service benefits, with effect from the day the Petitioner completed ten years of service as daily wager on the post of Forest Worker i.e. the year 1.1.1991.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. and Others,

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. Thereafter, the matter will be duly considered by the second Respondent in the light of the judgment, referred to above and appropriate action in accordance with law will be taken within another four months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a copy of this judgment and the copy of the judgment, referred to above by the Petitioner.

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