Under I&Ph Division Baggi vs State Of H.P
2022 Latest Caselaw 2977 HP

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                     ON THE 9TH DAY OF MAY 2022

                               BEFORE




                                                            .

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, CHIEF JUSTICE

                                  &





                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA

                 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2800 OF 2022

    Between:-





    SH. KRISHAN DASS
    SON OF SH. BHAGAT RAM,
    RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BUSHAIR,
    P.O. RATTI, TEHSIL BALH, DISTT. MANDI,
    H.P.

    PRESENTLY SERVING AS A PUMP OPERATOR

    UNDER I&PH DIVISION BAGGI, DISTT. MANDI,
    H.P.,
    AGE 51 YEARS
                                                             PETITIONER
    (BY MR. A.K. GUPTA, ADVOCATE)



    AND

    1.     STATE OF H.P.




           THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (I&PH)
           TO THE GOVT. OF H.P.





           WITH HEADQUARTERS AT SHIMLA-2,
           H.P.

    2.     THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, I&PH





           WITH HEADQUARTERS AT
           JAL SHAKTI BHAWAN, TUTIKANDI,
           SHIMLA H.P.

    3.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, I&PH
           DIVISION BAGGI, DISTT. MANDI,
           H.P.
                                                        RESPONDENTS
    (BY MR. NAND LAL THAKUR,
    ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
    ___________________________________________________________




                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2022 20:05:43 :::CIS
                                              2




                   This petition coming for orders this day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep
    Sharma, passed the following:
                                       ORDER

.

By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the

following main relief:

"That the respondents may be ordered to confer work charge status to

the petitioner, on completion of 8 years service, with all benefits incidental thereof."

2. Having regard to the nature of the order proposed to be passed in

the instant petition, we do not find any necessity to call for the reply from

the respondents and as such, the same is dispensed with.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that his client

would be content and satisfied, in case his case is ordered to be

considered and decided in light of judgment rendered by this Court in

Nandini Thakur v. State of H.P. and others, CWPOA No. 1633 of 2019,

decided on May 13, 2021, in a time bound manner.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid

innocuous prayer made on behalf the petitioner.

5. Consequently, in view of above, we dispose of the present petition

by directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the

petitioner in light of judgment (supra), within a period of four weeks from

the date of submission of a copy of this order. Needless to say, the

authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of this order, shall

afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking

ordered thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate

proceedings before appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.

6. The petition stands disposed of alongwith all pending applications.

.

(Mohammad Rafiq) Chief Justice

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge May 9, 2022 (Vikrant)

r to