Himachal Pradesh High Court
_________________________________________________________________ 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 AT SHIMLA
CWP No.11886 of 2024
Decided on: 4th November, 2024
_________________________________________________________________
Kanchan ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Aman Hansretta, Advocate vice
Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional
Advocate General with Ms. Leena
Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, 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: -
"a. That respondents may kindly be directed to count
the service rendered by the petitioners on
contract basis prior to their regularization as
qualifying service for purpose of pensionary
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
benefits under the Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1972 and respondent may
kindly be directed to grant pension to petitioners
as per CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.
b. That respondents may kindly be further directed
to consider the case of petitioners for annual
increments from initial date of appointment on
contract basis.
c. That in alternate respondents may kindly be
directed to consider the case of petitioners for
pension and increments as per law laid down by
this Hon,ble court in its judgments passed in
case of Sheela Devi and Jugdish Chand case
and thereafter in case of Hem Raj Sharma which
has already been implemented vide annexure P-
6, and same treatment may also be extended to
petitioners also."
3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue
involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The
grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated
30.06.2024 (Annexure P-7) 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
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 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.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
November 4, 2024
R.Atal
