Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Chandra vs State Of H.P. And Another on 30 October, 2023
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.8189 of 2023
Date of Decision: 30.10.2023
.
_______________________________________________________
Jagdish Chandra .......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Piyush Agnihotri, Proxy Counsel vice Mr.
Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals
with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Ms. Sunaina,
Deputy Advocate Generals.
____________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for
following reliefs:-
" (i) The respondents may kindly be directed to award
and place the petitioner in the minimum pay fixed at
Rs. 14, 940/- after completion of five years of
service as librarian (College Cadre), pursuant to
judgments attached herewith this writ petition as
Annexure P-2(colly) and take action pursuant to
letter dated 02.03.2023/24.02.2023 (attached as
Annexure P-8 (Colly) with the writ petition and grant
all consequential benefits and monetary benefits
from the due date till the date of actual payment;
and/or.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to
pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the
due date till the date of such actual payment."
.
2. Though, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate
General has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, but
before reply could be called upon, learned counsel for the petitioner,
on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and
satisfied in case direction is issued to the respondents to consider and
decide his representation (Annexure P-7 colly), in a time bound
manner in terms of judgment dated 31.5.2012 passed by Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in CWP No.4667 of 2009, titled Ashok Kumar
Gupta vs. Union of India and others alongwith connected matters
and judgment dated 24th July 2012 passed by Division Bench of this
Court in CWP No.4668 of 2009, titled Abhilasha Sharda vs. Union
of India and others alongwith connected matters. Learned
Additional Advocate General is not averse to aforesaid innocuous
prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. He states that in case
representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously.
3. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition
is disposed of with a direction to the respondents consider and
decide the pending representation (Annexure P-7 Colly) of the
petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks
strictly in terms of the judgments dated 31.5.2012 and 24th July 2012,
as detailed hereinabove. Needless to say, authority concerned while
doing the needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity
of being heard to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order
.
thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate
proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.
Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
October 30,2023
(shankar)
