RAM KRISHAN, SON OF SH. PURKHU, R/O VIOLLAGE KUTHAIN, P.O. CHAMBI, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTT. MANDI H.P., Vs. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH SECRETARY (FOREST) TO THE GOVT. OF H.P. AT SHIMLA H.P. ANDPR. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, SHIMLA H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims work 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 316.

(2.) THE learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioner submits that she would file appropriate representation(s) furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for them to do so. The third 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).