Tilak Raj vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

" i. That the respondents may be directed to consider and give the work charge status to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2003 i.e. the date of completion of 10 years of continuous daily wage service with all consequential benefits.

ii) That the action of the Respondent Corporation in giving work charge status to some other daily waged worker w.e.f. the date of completion of 10 years of continuous service (in 2001) despite their regularization (in 2006/2007) but in denying this benefit to the petitioner may be declared discriminatory and illegal."

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in P.V. Papanna and others Vs. K. Padmanabhaiah,

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.