Sheetla Devi vs State of H.P. and Another

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The Petitioner claims the benefit of ad hoc service followed by regular service for the purpose of pension and increments. According to the Petitioner, the issue is covered in her favour by the judgment of this Court rendered in LPA No.36 of 2010, Sita Ram v. State.

Learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioner submits that she 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 her to do so.

3.Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Respondent concerned to examine the matter after verifying the facts, in the light of the judgment referred to above and take appropriate action thereon within a period of four months from the date of the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and the copy of the judgment referred to above.

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