Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.46 seconds)
State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others vs Layak Ram on 27 August, 2025 cites

State Of Hp And Others vs Surajmani And Anr on 12 January, 2023

-writ petitioner(s) herein, for work charge status from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service is upheld. However, upon conferment of work charge status, the resultant relief shall be limited to "notional benefits" instead of "restricted monetary benefits for 3 years prior to filing of the petition", so as to bring the Impugned Judgment, it tune with the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ashwani Kumar, which stands reinforced in the cases of Surajmani (supra) and recently reiterated in the case of Janak Dev Sharma (supra).
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 385 - Full Document

State Of H.P.& Ors vs Ashwani Kumar & Ors on 26 November, 2015

and arguments put forth today before us were the ones which were urged/ raised in the said application. Though Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel appearing for the State would fairly submit that the said application was withdrawn on the ground of subsequent schemes having been formulated and implemented by the State of Himachal Pradesh, but we are unable to accept the said proposition howsoever attractive it may be, for the simple reason that the said application was dismissed simpliciter as withdrawn. Yet another factor which sways our mind to reject the contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the State would be the fact that the State having accepted the judgment of Ashwani Kumar (supra), has implemented the same and it is in this background, the High Court in the impugned order has observed that the State cannot adopt pick and choose policy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 391 - Full Document

State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014

13. We may hasten to add that these principles may not, however, apply to judgments which are delivered in rem. The State and its instrumentalities are expected r in such category of cases to themselves extend the benefit of a judicial pronouncement to all similarly placed employees without forcing each person to individually knock the doors of courts. This distinction between operation of delay and laches to judgments delivered in rem and in personam, is lucidly captured in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, ......"
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1005 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Layak Ram vs State Of Hp And Others on 16 August, 2023

State Authorities admitted the factual matrix stating, that writ petitioner worked continuously with 240 days in each calendar year from 1996 and having rendered more than 14 years of daily waged services he was regularized as Mali [Class-IV] as per orders dated 22.02.2010 w.e.f. 01.09.2007 [Annexure R-II] as per joint state seniority and vacancy position and the regularization policy notified by Government of Himachal Pradesh. Reply-Affidavit stated that the case of petitioner is neither covered for regularization nor for grant of work-charged status yet in earlier round of litigation in CWP No.8496 of 2010, titled as Layak Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others and the orders dated 06.01.2011 passed therein, the matter was examined in light of the judgment in CWP No 2735 of 2010, Rakesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others along
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Smt. Reema Devi vs State Of Hp And Ors on 3 September, 2020

In response to plea that work- charged establishment does not exist in the respondent Department, learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred pronouncements of this High Court in cases CWPOA No. 5748 of 2019, titled Man Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others; CWPOA No. 52 of 2019, titled Beli Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another; CWPOA No. 5566 of 2019, titled as Reema Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others; and CWPOA No. 5660 of 2019, titled Ghanshyam Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others; LPA No. 151 of 2021, titled State of HP Vs. Beli Ram, decided on 09.08.2023; CWPOA No. 5554 of 2019, titled Daulat Ram vs. State of HP and others; CWPOA No.6468 of
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 23 - S Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next