MUKESH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court for the grant of following substantive relief's:

(2.) THAT if it is found necessary to quash the appointment on secondment basis of respondents No. 3 and 4 or anyone of them vide Annexures P -5 and P -11 or any other appointment on secondment basis made during the pendency of writ petition, in that event such appointment(s) may also be quashed and set aside.

(3.) THE official respondents in the reply have stated that after scrapping of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by the government, services of the official like the petitioner were put in the surplus pool of the Finance department of the State Government. The services of the petitioner were then taken on secondment basis as a Clerk from this surplus pool. The petitioner had submitted his option on 18.6.2010 for his permanent absorption in the Lokayukta department. The case of the petitioner was then sent to the government for his permanent absorption in the Lokayukta. Vide letter dated 13.12.2011, government conveyed the decision of the Cabinet and informed that the official could be absorbed permanently in the Lokayukta only subject to fulfilling certain terms and conditions. Out of four total terms and conditions, third condition stipulated as follows: -