Himachal Pradesh High Court
_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 22 November, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.13386 of 2024 Decided on: 22nd November, 2024 _________________________________________________________________ Naresh Kumar and Anr. ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Ms Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y. P. S. Dhaulta, learned Additional 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 the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other order, writ or directions may kindly be issued, is the respondents to grant the 3rd benefit of ACP to the petitioners on completion of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes -2- 14 years of regular service in the cadre of TGT from due date i.e., from the year 2015 with all consequential benefits in terms of the instructions dated 09.08.2012, 07.07.2014 & 09.09.2014.
II. That Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may be issued to directing the Respondents to also pay the consequential arrears alongwith interest @9% per annum."
3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that their representation dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) 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 multiplication of the litigation, but would also bring in -3- 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 dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge November 22, 2024 R.Atal