In Punu Ram vs The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, the petitioner filed for a writ of mandamus to get relief regarding the regularisation of his services. The court following the previous verdict to regularise the services as Work Inspector gave the decision in petitioner’s favour while rejecting the demand that the court observes that he get consequential benefits.
Brief facts of the case
The petitioner had filed a writ petition of mandamus and inter alia prayed for relief. The petitioner wants the relief of getting regularised his services as a Work Inspector with all consequential benefits.The petitioner wants relief from the date he completed ten years of service. However, as per the respondents, the petitioner forged his means of being qualified for regularisation. But, even when the petitioner was legally eligible for regularisation terms of the Policy of the Government at that time from 01.04.2002, he was regularised in 2006.
Also, the order for regularisation was modified from getting regularised as a work Inspector to Beldar commencing from 01.04.2002. It was done after the court gave the verdict in which it was put upon the employees to decide whether the petitioner has to be regularised as work Inspector or Beldar. The court also orders the regularisation to be prospective regularisation if the petitioner were to be regularised as a work Inspector Instead and a different pension scheme to be followed.
In the verdict, the court also ordered the writ to be dismissed with this being their final order on the petition.
Arguments made by the Petitioner
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petition can be disposed of as the petitioner has been regularised on 01.04.2020. But the court has to observe that all the consequential benefits under her belt.
Arguments made by the Respondent
The respondents opposed the need for observation as the decision has already been given in favour of the petitioner with consequential benefits being broadcasted in favour of the petitioner.
The court observed that the statements were given by the respondents to be valid and hence considered them. The court further observed that the petitioner has been regularised appropriately and therefore, the petition can be disposed of with no further judgement required in the matter.
As per the aforementioned facts and observations, the writ was disposed of by the court.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.