Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1882 (HP)

Abhi Kumar v. State of H. P.

2011-03-31

KURIAN JOSEPH, V.K.AHUJA

body2011
JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. The petitioners claim work charge status/regularization with all consequential benefits from the date they completed 10 years of continued service. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316. 2. The learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. The petitioners may file appropriate representation(s) furnishing all factual details before the second respondent within a period of one month from today. The second respondent/competent authority will look into the matter, verify the facts and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, in light also of the decision referred to above within a period of another four months. The petitioner concerned will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the judgment referred to in this judgment while submitting the representation (s). 3. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.