IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RANJAN SHARMA
Bhagat Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. engagement periods and entitlement issues. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. departments' arguments regarding breaks. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. insufficient evidence from departments. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. work-charge status does not depend on establishment. (Para 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. legal precedent on work-charge status. (Para 11 , 13 , 15) |
| 6. judgments supporting status conferment. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. directions regarding regularization and benefits. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 36) |
| 8. additional petitions and their specifics. (Para 35 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 9. mutual applicability of precedents. (Para 41) |
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
1. All these petitions, for involvement of issue to be decided on the basis of similar facts and common law, are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Petitioners were appointed by the respondents-departments, i.e. HPPWD and IPH, on various dates during the years 1991 to 1999. Common grievance of the petitioners is that after their initial engagement as daily wagers, they were not permitted to complete 240 days in each calendar year in order to deprive them from benefit of regularization after completion of requisite years of service as per Regularization Po
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.