_______________________________________________________ vs H.P. State Forest Corporation ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1396 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

                                                CWP No. 4669 of 2020




                                                                           .
                                Date of decision: 26.02.2021





    _______________________________________________________
    Ramesh Chand                                    .....Petitioner

                               Versus





    H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. & others ...Respondents
    __________________________________________________________
    Coram:





    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1
    __________________________________________________
    For the petitioner           :      Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate.


    For the respondents:                Mr. Vinod Thakur,                 Advocate,        for
                                        respondents No. 1 & 2.

                                        Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General
                                        with Mr. Adarsh Sharma and Ms. Ritta


                                        Goswami, Additional Advocates General,
                                        for respondent No. 3.




    L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice                   (Oral)

The petitioner was appointed as Carpenter on daily

wage basis on 03.09.1992 with the State Forest Corporation. By

way of this writ petition, he seeks a direction to the respondents to

regularize his services on completion of 8 years' of continuous

service.

2. From the perusal of the record, it is seen that the

petitioner has not approached the respondents for the redressal of

his grievances before approaching this Court. When a person seeks

Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

a writ of mandamus, he should satisfy this Court whether he has

approached the Competent Authority and that his case has been

.

rejected. Until and unless the Authorities consider the case of the

petitioner, it is not permissible for him to approach this Court

directly seeking a writ of mandamus.

3. Under these circumstances, we dispose of this writ

petition permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the

respondents. In the event of the petitioner's filing a representation

before the respondents/competent Authority, it is for them to

consider and pass appropriate orders within three months from the

date of filing of the representation.

4. Needless to observe that in case the grievance of the

petitioner is not redressed, he will be at liberty to approach this

Court, if so advised.

5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand

disposed of

(L. Narayana Swamy) Chief Justice.

    February 26, 2021                         (Ravi Malimath)
     (hemlata)                                     Judge.