Disposed

Mahabir v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Jan 2013CWP/437/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerning regularization of service for a daily wage employee in the Forest Department was disposed of by directing the respondent to consider the claim, issue a final decision on a served legal notice, and pass a speaking order within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2 to consider petitioner's claim, act on legal notice dated 15.05.2012, and pass a speaking order within four months.

Mahabir Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 437 of 2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 437 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.01.2013

Mahabir

...... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana & others

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶11

Present: Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

¶13

It is asserted that the petitioner has been working continuously as Class IV on daily wage basis with the Forest Department, State of Haryana since the year 1992. The State Government from time to time had issued various policies on the subject of regularization of service i.e. on 17.06.1997, 05.11.99, 01.10.2003 and 10.02.2004. However, in terms of memo dated 25.04.2007 (Annexure P-2), the aforementioned policies were withdrawn in the light of the judgment dated 10.04.2006 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnatka Vs. Uma Devi.

¶14

Counsel would refer to a letter bearing No.4587 dated 10.02.2011 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Haryana, wherein, it had been recited that the claim of all such daily wage employees who were entitled for regularization prior to the

¶15

-2-

¶16

CWP No. 437 of 2013 (O&M)

¶17

withdrawal of policies i.e. on 13.04.2007 would be considered and accordingly the details of all such employees had been called for. Still further, in terms of letter dated 09.05.2011 (Annexure P-4), the names of various employees including that of the petitioner had duly been forwarded to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Haryana as regards consideration of their claim for regularization in service.

¶18

The precise grievance as raised in terms of filing the present writ petition is that till date no final decision has been taken. Counsel further apprise the Court that even a legal notice dated 15.05.2012 (Annexure P-5) already stands served upon the respondentauthorities.

¶19

In the light of the facts noticed hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to respondent no.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner and to take a final decision on the legal notice dated 15.05.2012 (Annexure P-5), strictly in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶20

Disposed of.

¶21

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

¶22

January 11, 2013 harjeet

Mahabir v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahabir v. State of Haryana & Ors.

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

Jaswinder Singh @ Sonu Vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Aman Goyal Vs State of Punjab

Jitender Vs State of Haryana and Another

Amanpreet Kaur Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sonia Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Ors.