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.12218 of 2024
Decided on: 4th November, 2024
_________________________________________________________________
Ayodhya Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Varun Thakur and Mr. Aakash
Thakur, Advocates.
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: -
"(i) That the respondents may be ordered to add
service rendered by the petitioner on Daily wage
basis towards the pensionary benefits and
pension after taking into account may be ordered
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
to be enhanced from the due date with all the
benefits incidental thereof.
(ii) That the gratuity amount may also be ordered to
be revised by the respondents after taking into
consideration the work charge service rendered
by the petitioner and the gratuity for the period
the petitioner remained on work charge basis, as
per Payment of Gratuity Rules."
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
(Annexure P-9) 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 (Annexure
P-9) 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
