SHAKUNTLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for the following prayers:-

(2.) The stand taken by the respondents in their reply is that subsequent to filing of the writ petition, the matter of the petitioner qua her mandays during the year 1995 was re-examined. It was found from her musteroll that she had completed 280 days in the year 1995. The respondents further acknowledged in their reply that the Screening Committee in the year 2007 by way of some over sight did not consider the correct musteroll of the petitioner regarding her mandays in the year 1995 and that the department is now considering/rectifying the order of petitioner's regularization. The relevant part of the reply reads as under:-

(3.) The respondents while regularizing many persons/beldars in the department and Screening Committee in the year 2007 must have over right the musteroll of the petitioner regarding her mandays in the year 1995 which action is not intentional nor deliberately but due to reasons stated above and now the department is considering/rectifying the order of petitioner's regularization and matter is under process. The detail of mandays from 1995 to 2003 are enclosed Annexure R-3."