Himachal Pradesh High Court
Cwp No.10026/2024 vs Hrtc & Anr on 24 October, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10026/2024 and connected matters Decided on: 24.10.2024
1. CWP No.10026/2024 Bakhshish Singh ...Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
2. CWP No.10071/2024 Sumit Kumar ...Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
3. CWP No.10078/2024 Ramesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
4. CWP No.10079/2024 Chander Mohan ...Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
5. CWP No.10080/2024 Simro Devi ...Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
26. CWP No.10081/2024
Vipan Raj ...Petitioner
Versus
HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
7. CWP No.10082/2024
Baldev Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
8. CWP No. 10097/2024
Mehar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
9. CWP No.10098/2024
Sukarma Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
10. CWP No.10099/2024
Sukh Dev ...Petitioner
Versus
HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
11. CWP No.10100/2024
Tripta Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
3
HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
12. CWP No.10101/2024
Pritam Chand ...Petitioner
Versus
HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
13. CWP No.10102/2024
Bajjar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
14. CWP No.10103/2024
Ashok Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
15. CWP No.10104/2024
Kehar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
16. CWP No.10107/2024
Dharam Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
17. CWP No.10108/2024
Salig Ram ...Petitioner
4
Versus
HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
18. CWP No.10112/2024
Dina Nath ...Petitioner
Versus
HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
19. CWP No.10645/2024
Puran Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
20. CWP No.10651/2024
Mohinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
21. CWP No.10652/2024
Bachitter Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
22. CWP No.10655/2024
Kuldeep Raj ...Petitioner
Versus
HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
23. CWP No.10660/2024
5
Ram Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents.
........................................................................................... Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr.Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashista & Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocates, for the respective respondents.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht and Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. The writ petitions have been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:-
"That respondent may kindly be directed to grant of pension allowance @5, 10% and 15% of basic pension on attaining the age of 65 years 70 years and 75 years as per judgment dated 06.07.2017 passed by Erstwhile Tribunal in O.A. 2929/2015, which has also been upheld by the Hon'ble H.P. High Court in CWP No. 8570/2023 titled as HRTC Vs. Brij Lal & Ors. which is upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court of India in SLP(Civil) Dairy No(s). 50794/2023."1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 6
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 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 redresssal 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. In view of above, the instant petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the 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 petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 24th October, 2024(rohit)