Himachal Pradesh High Court
Satish Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 4 November, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.11872 to 11881, 11883, 11884 and 11889 of 2024 Date of decision: 04.11.2024
1. CWP No.11872 of 2024 Satish Kumar. ...Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
2. CWP No.11873 of 2024 Ishan Sharma. ...Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
3. CWP No.11874 of 2024 Nitish Kumari. ...Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
4. CWP No.11875 of 2024 Madhu Bala. ...Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. 5. CWP No.11876 of 2024 Sarwan Kumar. ...Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- 6. CWP No.11877 of 2024 Anup Chand. ...Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. 7. CWP No.11878 of 2024 Neha Walia. ...Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. 8. CWP No.11879 of 2024 Nitika Sharma. ...Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. 9. CWP No.11880 of 2024 Sapa Kumar. ...Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. 10. CWP No.11881 of 2024 Abhishek Kumar. ...Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. 11. CWP No.11883 of 2024
Chint Lal. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
-3-
12. CWP No.11884 of 2024
Sanjay Kumar. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
13. CWP No.11889 of 2024
Shikha Kumari. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate, in all matters.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma and Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Additional Advocates General, for respondents-State.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. The writ petitions have been filed for the grant of following substantive relief(s):-
"A. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to count the period of contract service of the petitioner for the purpose -4- seniority, annual increments and all other consequential benefits.
B. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to decide the pending respective representations of the petitioner in time bound manner"
3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their respective representations have still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority
4. Once the legal principle involved in the adjudication of present petition has already been decided, it is expected from the welfare State to consider and decide the representation of the aggrieved employee within a reasonable time and not to sit over the same in-definitely compelling the employee to come to the Court for redressal of his grievances. This is also the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State. Not taking decision on the representation for months together would not only give rise to unnecessary multiplication of the litigation but would also bring in otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation. -5-
5. In view of above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective representations of the petitioners, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners.
The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua 4 November, 2024 th Judge (Pardeep)