_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 15840 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 28 October, 2024

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.12058 of 2024 Decided on: 28th October, 2024 _________________________________________________________________ Mohinder Singh ....Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting?

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vijay Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L. N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. L.N Sharma, learned Additional

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on

behalf of the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of

following substantive reliefs: -

"(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to bring the service of the petitioner on contractual establishment against the post of pump attendant immediately on completion of 12 years services as pump attendant w.e.f. 01.01.2019

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

instead of 19.11.2019 and further the respondents may kindly be directed to give regularization to the petitioner immediately after completion of 3 years of contractual services i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.2022 instead of 04.05.2022 in the time scale of pay from due date alongwith all consequential benefits, including seniority, arrears and monetary benefits, in the interest of justice and fair play.

ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant relaxation in educational qualification to the petitioner as has been done in the case of other similarly situated persons."

3. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra

ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India without even preferring any

representation to the competent authority for the redressal of

his grievances raised in the writ petition.

4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring

representation within two weeks from today. In case such a

representation is so made, the same shall be decided by the

competent authority in accordance with law within a period of

six weeks thereafter. The order so passed shall also be

communicated to the petitioner.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

any.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge October 28, 2024 R.Atal

Cartridge of my computer is not working properly you

are requested to get the same refilled at the earliest.

SO (GAD)                                     (Rajeev Kumar)

                                             JW Court nNo.5