Date Of Decision: 15.5.2023 vs Tarun Kapoor And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 5866 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                                    .
                                                    COPCT No. 1080 of 2020





                                                 Date of Decision: 15.5.2023
    _____________________________________________________________________
    Chamaru Ram





                                                                        .........Petitioner
                                              Versus
    Tarun Kapoor and Anr.
                                                                     .......Respondents





    Coram

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?
    For the Petitioner
                        r     Mr. Vijay Kaushal, Advocate.

    For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.
                         Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr.
                         Rahul Thakur and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy
                         Advocates General.


    ___________________________________________________________________________
    Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

While placing on record copy of office order dated 2.9.2021,

learned Additional Advocate General states that mandate contained in the

judgment alleged to have been violated stands duly complied with and as

such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings.

2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order reveals that in compliance to

the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated,

petitioner, who was a daily wager, has been appointed as Peon by way of

regularization w.e.f. 18.12.2015 i.e. from 18.12.2015 to 26.11.2020 on

supernumerary post and thereafter, against regular post of peon, in the pay

.

scale of Rs. 4900-10680 +1300 (GP) with initial start of Rs. 4900/- (pay in

the Pay Band)+ 13--(Grade Pay) i.e. Rs. 6200/- Basic Pay and other

allowances.

3. On account of aforesaid compliance, nothing remains to be

adjudicated in the instant proceedings and as such, same are closed.

Notices discharged. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file

appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law if he still remains

aggrieved.

    May 15, 2023                                     (Sandeep Sharma),
         (manjit)                                           Judge