Himachal Pradesh High Court
Veena Kumari vs Hpseb & Another on 26 February, 2015
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CWP No.1410 of 2015
Date of decision: 26.02.2015
Veena Kumari .....Petitioner
.
Versus
HPSEB & another ..... Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate.
For the respondent: Ms. Sharmila Patial, Advocate.
________________________________________________________________________________
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral)
Issue notice. Ms. Sharmila Patial, Advocate, waives notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. It is contended that the petitioner had filed writ petition being CWP No.6690 of 2010-G for regularization, wherein respondents were directed to examine the case of the petitioner in light of the policy occupying the field, but the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that she has not completed 20 years of service as on 1st July, 2013 and by now, the petitioner has completed 20 years of service and it is prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization.
3. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition at this stage by directing the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner for regularization and make a decision within six weeks from ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:39:37 :::HCHP 2 today as per the rules occupying the field. Ordered accordingly.
4. It goes without saying that in case, the decision .
goes against the petitioner, she is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy.
Copy dasti.
( Mansoor Ahmad Mir )
Chief Justice
February 26, 2015 ( Dharam Chand Chaudhary )
(vt) r Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:39:37 :::HCHP