Himachal Pradesh High Court
Satish Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 4 November, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP Nos.11872 to 11881, 11883,
11884 and 11889 of 2024
Date of decision: 04.11.2024
1. CWP No.11872 of 2024
Satish Kumar. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
2. CWP No.11873 of 2024
Ishan Sharma. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
3. CWP No.11874 of 2024
Nitish Kumari. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
4. CWP No.11875 of 2024
Madhu Bala. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
Sarwan Kumar. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
Anup Chand. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
Neha Walia. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
Nitika Sharma. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
Sapa Kumar. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
Abhishek Kumar. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
Chint Lal. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
Sanjay Kumar. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
Shikha Kumari. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No
For the petitioner : Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate, in
all matters.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate
General with Mr. L.N. Sharma
and Mr. Dalip K. Sharma,
Additional Advocates General,
for respondents-State.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate
General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of
the respondents.
2. The writ petitions have been filed for the grant of
following substantive relief(s):-
"A. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be
issued thereby directing the respondents to count the
period of contract service of the petitioner for the purpose
seniority, annual increments and all other consequential
benefits.
B. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be
issued thereby directing the respondents to decide the
pending respective representations of the petitioner in
time bound manner"
3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue
involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The
grievance of the petitioners is that their respective
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 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
otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on
unproductive government induced litigation.
5. In view of above, these writ petitions are disposed
of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider
and decide the respective 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.
The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
4 November, 2024
th
Judge
(Pardeep)
