9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1404 - HC - Indian LawsInclusion of name of petitioner in the list of daily wages employee as Data Entry Operator in respondents' department taking into consideration the long services of petitioner from year 2004 to till date - petitioner submits that the petitioner has made a representation for the redressal of his grievance before the respondent no. 3, however, the same has not been considered - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the application of the petitioner is pending consideration before the respondent no. 3 and without entering into the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed off giving liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh application before the respondent no. 3 along with a copy of this order, which shall be decided in accordance with law with all expeditions preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of representation along with certified copy of this order. While deciding the claim of the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 shall decide as to whether the persons similarly to the petitioner have been regularized or not.
Issues Involved:
1. Petition for inclusion in the list of daily wages employees as a Data Entry Operator. 2. Representation for redressal of grievance not considered by the respondent. 3. Disposal of the present petition with directions for fresh application and consideration by respondent no. 3. Issue 1: Petition for Inclusion in the List of Daily Wages Employees as a Data Entry Operator The petitioner filed a petition seeking a writ to include their name in the list of daily wages employees as a Data Entry Operator, citing their long services from 2004 onwards. The counsel for the petitioner highlighted that a representation for redressal of grievance had been made to the respondent no. 3, which was not considered. The court, without delving into the merits of the case, disposed of the petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit a fresh application to the respondent no. 3, along with a copy of the court's order, for consideration within two months. It was emphasized that the application should be decided in accordance with the law and with expedition. Issue 2: Representation for Redressal of Grievance Not Considered by the Respondent The petitioner's counsel informed the court that a representation addressing the petitioner's grievance had been submitted to the respondent no. 3 but had not been taken into account. The court acknowledged the pending application before the respondent no. 3 and directed the petitioner to file a fresh application for consideration along with a copy of the court's order. The court instructed that the new application should be decided promptly, preferably within two months from submission, with reference to the court's order. Issue 3: Disposal of the Present Petition with Directions for Fresh Application and Consideration by Respondent No. 3 In disposing of the present petition, the court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application before the respondent no. 3, accompanied by a copy of the court's order. The court specified that the respondent no. 3 should assess whether individuals similar to the petitioner had been regularized or not while deciding on the petitioner's claim. The directive emphasized that the new application should be processed promptly and in compliance with legal requirements, with a preference for resolution within a two-month timeframe from the date of submission.
|
