High Court of Himachal Pradesh · 2012
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Mata Ram, son of Shri Chuhr Singh, resident of Village Sorani, P.O. Dadhu, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P.
Roshan Lal, son of late Shri Pati Ram, resident of Village Mehat, P.O. Kondaquosar, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P.
Rajinder Dutt Sharma, son of Shri Nain Singh, resident of Village Hayunadd, P.O. Jayukoti, Tehsil Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P.
Tara Dutt, Son of Shri Nain Singh, resident of Village Hayunadd, P.O. Jayukoti, Tehsil Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P. -Versus- (cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133).Petitioners.
3. The State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Art & Culture), to the Government of H.P., Shimla, H.P. The Director, Art & Culture, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, H.P. Shri Renuka Ji Development Board, through its Chairman, Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur, District Sirmaur, H.P.
4. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sirmaur, District Sirmaur, H.P. (cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)Respondents. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. Coram: The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate. For respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate vice Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For respondent No. 3 : 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): In sequel to order dated 10th April, 2012, the Board filed a supplementary affidavit. According supplementary affidavit, the Board has limited resources and it is re-constituted from time to time. Since the petitioners have already put in 17 years of service, the respondent-Board is directed to consider the case of petitioners for regularization as and when the financial position improves. Case of the petitioners will be reviewed after 31st March, 2013. The fact whether the Board is constituted or re-constituted will not affect the case of petitioners for regularization taking into consideration their length of service. Respondents are also directed not to show any displeasure to the petitioners for approaching this Court.
Operative part
2. With the aforesaid observations/directions, petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. May 21, 2012. (bhupender) (Rajiv Sharma) Judge - 3 -
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 21 May 2012. The bench was RAJIV SHARMA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.