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.12112 of 2024 Decided on: 22nd November, 2024 _________________________________________________________________ Sunita Verma & Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. H.S.Rana, Advocates. 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 this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to Count the services rendered by Petitioners as Junior Basic 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes -2- Teachers as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as well as for annual increments, in view of the Judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP/2004/2017 Tai Mohammad along with all consequential benefits.
ii. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly beissued directing the Respondents to release the arrears along with interest @ 9% p.a. iii That Respondent may kindly directed to consider/decide the Representation of the Petitioner (Annexure P-6) with in time bound manner."
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 representations [Annexure P-6 (colly)], annexed with the petition, 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 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 -3- 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. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid 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.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge November 22, 2024 R.Atal