DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY Vs. CHET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. On merits, it is seen that the learned Single Judge has only directed the Appellant -University to confer work charge status on the Respondent -workman in the year 1994, as per the decision of the apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhayaya v. State of H.P. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, in the University the posts were available only in the year 1998 and in the year 1998, the Respondent employee has been given regular employment. There is No. quarrel with the steps taken by the Appellant -University. The only question is whether the Respondent -employee should have been conferred work charge status in the year 1994, as per the directions of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhayaya's case. There is No. dispute that the said decision applies to the University as well. As per the said decision, the writ Petitioner was otherwise entitled for conferment of work charge status in 1994, even if regular post was not available. Therefore, the Appellant -University need not have any apprehension that even without a post, regular appointment should be given to the Respondent -Petitioner. What the learned Single Judge has directed is only to confer work charge status on the writ Petitioner employee w.e.f. 1994, as per the decision in Mool Raj Upadhayaya's case and not regular appointment from 1994. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to issue notice to the Respondent and consider the matter on merits. Hence, subject to the above observations, the application for condonation of delay and the appeal are dismissed.