Baryam Singh vs State of H.P. and Another

Sanjay Karol, J.—The writ petition is filed mainly with the following prayers:

(I) That impugned Annexure P-2 may kindly be directed to be amended and the services of the Petitioner may kindly be regularized as Fitter Grade-I w.e.f. 1.12.1988 with all consequential benefits, pay seniority etc.

(II) That the Respondents may kindly be saddle with special and extra-ordinary costs as deemed fit so.

According to the Petitioner, the issue is covered in his favour by the decisions of this Court in Gauri Dutt and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366 and Mool Raj Upadhaya v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. reported in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. and Others, The learned Dy. Advocate General submits that the facts have to be verified. Petitioner submits that he will file an 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, this writ petition is disposed of, as follows:

It will be open to the Petitioner to file an appropriate representation before the 1st Respondent along with a copy of the judgment, referred to above, within a period of two months from today, in which case the matter will be examined on facts and in light of the decisions, referred to above, and appropriate action will be taken in the matter within another four months.