Himachal Pradesh Native Evokes a Writ of Mandamus to Get Regularisation of His Services Schedule in 2002

Must Read

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Follow us

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.

Court’s Observations

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.

Held

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, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & 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.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -