Himachal Pradesh High Court · 2011

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. ________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass, Sood, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________________ 2 Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (oral) The petitioner claims charge status/regularization with all consequential benefits from the date she completed 10 years of continued service. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and others, 1994, Supp. (2) SCC

The learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioner submits she would appropriate representation(s) furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It always so. The respondent/competent authority will look into the matter, verify the facts and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, in light also of the decision referred to above within a period of another four months. The petitioner concerned will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the judgment, referred to above and a copy of the writ petition(s), while submitting the representation(s).