Sohan Lal vs State of H.P. and others

Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The petitioners claim the benefit of ad hoc service followed by regular service for the purpose of pension and increments. According to the petitioners, the issue is covered in their favour by the judgments of this Court rendered in LPA No.36 of 2010, titled as Sita Ram vs. State H.P., decided on 15.7.2010 and CWP No. 4550 of 2010 titled as Ravi Kumar vs. State of H.P. & another and other connected matters, decided on 16.12.2010.

Learned Additional Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioners submit that they would file appropriate representation(s) furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for them to do so.

Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents concerned to examine the matter, after verifying the facts, in the light of the judgments, 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, alongwith the representation(s) and copy of the writ petition(s) as well as copies of the judgments, referred to above, by the petitioner concerned.

With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.