Allowed

Roshan Lal v. Narinder Chauhan

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Dec 2014COPC/451/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the respondents to regularize the petitioner within three weeks from the judgment date, clarifying that mere registration of an FIR and framing of charges would not hinder regularization unless conviction and sentencing occur, while consequential benefits would attach. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to issue a letter conferring regularization from the due date within three weeks with all consequential benefits; petition disposed of.

Roshan Lal Vs Narinder Chauhan — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

COPC No. 451/2014 Decided on 2.12.2014

¶3

____________________________________________________________________ Roshan Lal ………..Petitioner Versus
Narinder Chauhan and others ……….Respondents
____________________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹
____________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General
Mr. B.S. Barwal, Executive Engineer,
HP PWD, (B& R) Division,
Jogindernagar, District Mandi, HP (respondent No.3)
____________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral)

¶4

Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on 12.5.2014 towards regularization. The Departmental Promotion Committee, in sequel to the judgment rendered by the Court, was convened and petitioner was found suitable. The only ground for denying the benefit of regularization to the petitioner is that an FIR has been registered in the year 2012 against the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Barwal, Executive Engineer, submits that the charge has been framed against the petitioner. Mere registration of an FIR and framing of the charge should not come in the way of the regularisaton of the petitioner. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner is convicted and sentenced, law would take its own course.

¶5

Accordingly, respondents are directed to issue letter to the petitioner conferring regularization from due date, within a period of three weeks from today. It is made clear that regularization would carry all consequential benefits. The petition stands disposed of. Notices are discharged. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶6

(Rajiv Sharma) Judge

¶7

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

December 2, 2014 (vikrant)

Roshan Lal v. Narinder Chauhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Lal v. Narinder Chauhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Vs Bhupender Pal

Ramesh Chand Verma Vs Vineet Chaudhary

Gian Chand Vs State of Hp

Padam Chand Vs Chander Kanta

Ran Singh Vs Narinder Chauhan

Umesh Kumar Vs Kartar Singh