INDERJIT THAKUR Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner seeks review of the order dated 18th May, 2015 passed in W.P.(S) No.6712 of 2013 which reads as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the said date when the order was passed relevant facts stated in the writ petition at paragraph-11 that the petitioner has been working on daily wages since the year 2007, could not be brought to the notice of this Court. The observation recorded in the impugned order on the basis of representation of the petitioner at Annexure-5 of the writ petition that he has not been taken back in service, would otherwise prejudice his case, as there are no denials in the counter affidavit about the assertion made in paragraph-11. It is submitted that if the petitioner is able to show his engagement for a continuous length of time for the purposes of making claim for regularisation duly supported with documents before the concerned competent authority under the respondents, these observations otherwise may come in his way.