Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.65 seconds)
Sh. Puran Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 21 July, 2022 cites

Ravi Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 31 July, 2015

Apart from above, issue/question involved in the present case already stands settled in number of cases i.e. CWP No. 4489 of 2009, titled Ravi Kumar v. State of HP and Ors, further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 33570 of 2010 titled State of HP and Ors v. Pritam Singh and connected matters and CWP No. 187 of 2017, decided on 19.9.2017, titled State of HP and Ors v. Hira Nath.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 156 - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another vs Sh. Pritam Singh & Others on 3 June, 2016

Apart from above, issue/question involved in the present case already stands settled in number of cases i.e. CWP No. 4489 of 2009, titled Ravi Kumar v. State of HP and Ors, further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 33570 of 2010 titled State of HP and Ors v. Pritam Singh and connected matters and CWP No. 187 of 2017, decided on 19.9.2017, titled State of HP and Ors v. Hira Nath.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 37 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar & Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 8 April, 2015

2010 titled Rakesh Kumar v. State of HP and Ors, wherein it has been categorically held that once scheme announced by the Government provides for conferment of work charge status of an employee/ workman after his/her having completed requisite period, it is the duty of the department to consider the cases of such workmen for conferment of work charge status on completion of required number of years in terms of the policy. Most importantly, in the aforesaid judgment, it has been categorically held that claim of the petitioner for work charge status cannot be defeated on the ground of delay and laches, at best he can be only denied the interest on the eligible benefits and not the benefits, which may have accrued to him on account of grant of conferment of work charge status. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 333 - Full Document

Sukh Chain vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 March, 2020

Respondents claimed in the aforesaid order that since Agricultural Department is not a Work Charge Establishment, they cannot be conferred work charge status in light of the judgment rendered by this Court Hiro Devi's case and in CWP No. 3724 of 2012, titled Sukh Chain v. State of HP. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following main reliefs:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - A Chitkara - Full Document

Hirmo Devi vs State Of H.P on 8 July, 2015

petitioners in light of the judgment passed by this Court in case titled Hiro Devi v. State of HP. Though after passing of the aforesaid judgment, petitioners filed representations before the concerned department to consider their cases in light of Hiro Devi's case (supra), as was directed by the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal, but fact remains that vide office order dated 27.7.2018, respondents rejected the case of the petitioners on the ground that they are not covered under the judgment passed by this Court in Hiro Devi's case.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - S Thakur - Full Document

State Of Hp And Others vs Hira Nath on 19 September, 2017

Apart from above, issue/question involved in the present case already stands settled in number of cases i.e. CWP No. 4489 of 2009, titled Ravi Kumar v. State of HP and Ors, further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 33570 of 2010 titled State of HP and Ors v. Pritam Singh and connected matters and CWP No. 187 of 2017, decided on 19.9.2017, titled State of HP and Ors v. Hira Nath.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1