Balu vs State of H.P. and Others

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

That appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued and the Respondent department may be directed to regularize/confer work charge status to the Petitioner after completion of 10 years of daily wage service with all consequential benefits in view of the judgment rendered by this Hon''ble Court.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya v. State of H.P., 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316.

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. Therefore, 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.