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
8 paragraphs · 224 wordsDev Darshan Sud,J.
The State challenges the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 965 of 2007.
The Respondent herein was engaged as daily waged worker in the year 1993 and claimed work charged status in 2003 which was granted to him w.e.f.1.1.2004.
The State relies upon the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, to submit that the judgment of the Tribunal is not in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court.
We cannot persuade ourselves to hold that this is the case where the policy for regularization and granting work charged status has been made, pursuant to Mool Raj Upadhyaya and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (1994)2 SLR 377.
The State then relies upon the judgment of this Court in Gauri Dutt and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh Latest HLJ 2008(HP) 366, to hold that the judgment is not in concert with the law laid down by this Court.
This judgment has now been challenged in Sarvjeet v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., Special Leave Petition(Civil) No. 20740 of 2008, which was also the subject matter of decision in Gauri Dutt''s case.
This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. It shall abide by the directions of the Supreme Court in the appeal mentioned above.