Disposed

Kundan Lal v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jul 2024CWPOA/259/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Work-charge employee sought regularization from 2004 with consequential benefits. Court disposed of the petition without going into merits, directing respondents to consider his case in light of a Division Bench decision in Sant Ram and extend similar benefits if covered, within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider and decide petitioner's case per Sant Ram judgment within four weeks; similar benefits if covered.

Kundan Lal Vs State of Hp — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:4262

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

Decided on: 1.7.2024

¶4

Kundan Lal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G. Virender Singh, Judge

¶5

By way of the present petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:

¶6

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent department or any other suitable writ, order or direction may kindly be issued to the respondent-department as under:

¶7

i) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to grant the work charge status/regularization to the petitioner w.e.f. the year 2004 with all consequential benefits as per the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the interest of justice and fair play.”

¶8

2024:HHC:4262

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that

¶10

the issue in question is squarely covered by the judgment dated 14.5.2024, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, in CWPOA No.5714 of 2020, titled as Sant Ram versus State of H.P. It is a matter, which is required to be considered by the employer.

¶11

Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner, in the light of the aforesaid decision and if the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid judgment, then the same and similar benefits, as extended in the aforesaid judgment, be also extended to the petitioner herein. This entire exercise shall be completed within four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶12

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶13

1.7.2024 Kalpana

¶14

2024:HHC:4262

Kundan Lal v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kundan Lal v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Piyari Vs Amar Singh

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Hp

Ranjeet Singh Mankotia Vs State of Hp

Ganga Ram Vs Hp State Cooprative Bank Ltd.

National Insurance Company Vs Munish Kumar

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Hp