ADITAYA PRAKASH case

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

15.04.2005

Present: Mr. B.P. Aggarwal, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.C. Malik, Advocate for the Respondent.

W.P.(C) No.12959/2004
*
On joint request renotify on 4.10.2005.


April 15,2005 Vikramajit Sen, J.
tp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 12959/2004

ADITAYA PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. B.P. Aggarwal, Advocate


versus


MOTHER DAIRY THRU ITS MANAGING ..... Respondent
Through Mr. S.C. Malik, Advocate


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT


O R D E R
04.10.2005
At joint request, adjourned to 1st February, 2006.

S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J
OCTOBER 04, 2005
dkg

20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 12959/2004

ADITAYA PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Puneet Verma, Advocate for
Mr. B.P. Aggarwal, Advocate


versus


MOTHER DAIRY THRU ITS MANAGING ..... Respondent






Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT

O R D E R
01.02.2006
One more request for adjournment has been made on behalf of the counsel
for the petitioner.
Adjourned to 3rd March, 2006. In case there is no representation on
behalf of the petitioner on the next date, that matter will be proceeded with on
its merit.

S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J
FEBRUARY 01, 2006
dkg
17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

24.07.2006

Present : Mr. B.P. Aggarwal, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Raj Birbal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Anita Prasad counsel for the
respondent.


WP (C)12959/2004

Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. Rejoinder be filed
within four weeks. Respondent is also directed to produce relevant record on the
next date of hearing.
List on 28.11.2006.

J.M. MALIK, J
July 24, 2006
tr
14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

28.11.2006

Present : Mr. B.P. Aggarwal, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Gautam Dutta with Ms. Anita Prasad, counsel for the
respondent.

WP (C) 12959/2004

Counsel for the respondent states that he has filed an additional
affidavit which goes to show that respondent is maintaining a seniority list of
the casual workmen based on the date of their first work and the name of the
petitioner is existing at number 130. Respondent has also stated that the
petitioner is not reporting for casual assignment even after number of
opportunities and he may loose his place in the seniority list for which he
shall be solely responsible.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner
will report his presence before the concerned authority by tomorrow. Counsel
for the respondent states that whenever his term will come, the petitioner will
be regularised.
With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.


J.M. MALIK, J
November 28, 2006
nk
36