Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 463 (HP)

Sohan Lal v. State of H. P.

2011-02-21

KURIAN JOSEPH, SANJAY KAROL

body2011
JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may very kindly be allowed and the appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents thereby directing the respondents to pay all consequential benefits, arrear of salary along with interest @ 12% per annum and seniority to the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner claims regularization/work charge status on completion of eight years of continuous service as daily wager. According to the petitioner, the issue is covered in his favour by the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No.2735 of 2010, Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others. It is for the respondents to examine the matter. 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. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy.