Himachal Pradesh High Court
_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 8 November, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.12564 of 2024 Decided on: 8th November, 2024 _________________________________________________________________ Jitender Mohan & Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. jagmohan Chandel, Advocate vice Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs: -
"(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent department to consider the respective cases of petitioners for regularization with effect from the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes -2- date of their initial appointment i.e. 2010 with all due and admissible consequential benefits in terms of the judgment in case LPA No. 54 of 2013titled as State of H.P. versus Om Prakash, Annexure P-4 by Hon'ble Court of Himachal Pradesh.
(ii). That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent department to decide the representation Annexure P-5, in a time bound manner in the interest of justice.
3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representation dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) has 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 indefinitely 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 -3- multiplication of the litigation, but would also bring in otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation.
5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation 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 petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge November 8, 2024 R.Atal