Back
2011 Supreme(HP) 1640
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Kurian Joseph, and Sanjay Karol, Judge.
Anoop Kumar. - Petitioner.
Vs.
State of H.P. and others. - Respondents.
CWP No. 66 of 2011.
Decided on : 22nd March, 2011.
For the petitioner:Mr. Aman Deep Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of verifying factual aspects and filing appropriate representation in matters related to work charge status/regularization.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Work Charge Status/Regularization - The court directed the respondent to examine the matter in the light of the judgment referred to and take appropriate action within a specified period.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought mandamus to direct the respondents to grant work charge status/regularization to him after completing 8 years of service as a Pump Operator.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondent to examine the matter in the light of the judgment referred to and take appropriate action within a period of four months.
Issues: Work charge status/regularization, verification of factual aspects by competent authority, filing of appropriate representation by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the competent authority to verify the factual aspects and for the petitioner to file appropriate representation furnishing all factual details.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the respondent was directed to examine the matter and take appropriate action within a specified period.
Kurian Joseph, J.
The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
“(i) To issue the writ in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the work charge status/regularization to the petitioner since the date when he has completed 8 years of service as Pump Operator i.e. 2006.”
2. The petitioner claims work charge status/regularization on completion of 8 years of continuous service as daily wager Pump Operator. According to the petitioner, the issue is covered in his favour by the judgment of this Court rendered in Gauri Dutt and others vs. State of H.P. reported in Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366.
3. 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.
4. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent concerned to examine the matter in the light of the judgment referred to above and take appropriate action thereon within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and the copy of the judgment, referred above.
5. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.
