Lakshman Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the petition is allowed
Judgment
Operative part
The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Prakash, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). It is jointly represented by the learned counsel for the parties that the present lis is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by their Lordships of the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 and State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Gehar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 43. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of work charge status strictly in accordance with principles laid down in Mool Raj Upadhaya versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316 and State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Gehar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 43 with all the consequential benefits. Needful be done within a period of ten weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs.
6.10.2010 *awasthi* (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the petition is allowed
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 06 Oct 2010. 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.