PURSHOTAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek conferment of work charge status/regularization. As far as those appointments made prior to 1.1.1994 are concerned, their cases are covered by the decision of the apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. : 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316. It is for such petitioners to represent the grievances before the third respondent, in which case the third respondent will take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law in the light of the above decision within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition and the copy of the judgment, referred to above. As far as those appointments after 1994 is concerned, their cases are covered by the decision of this Court rendered in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. and others. However, we are informed that the matter is pending before the Apex Court. In such cases, the petitioners are free to make appropriate representation(s) after the decision in the case which is pending before the Apex Court, before the third respondent, in which case the third respondent will take appropriate action in the light of the orders passed by the Apex Court within another two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment and the copies of the judgments, referred to above.

(2.) THE writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.