Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar vs State Of H.P. And Others on 7 November, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
2024:HHC:10844
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.11942 of 2024
alongwith connected matters
Decided on: 7th November, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CWP No.11942 of 2024
Anil Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CWP No.11943 of 2024
Sanchit Sharma .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sumit Sharma .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rahul .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tapender Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024:HHC:10844
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General
with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional
Advocate General.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional
Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on
behalf of the respondents.
2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant
of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP
No.11942 of 2024 read as under:-
"i) That writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ order or direction be issued to
respondents directing them to count contract service of
the petitioner from the date of initial appointment
followed by regularization for the purpose of increments,
seniority, consequential benefit, pensionary benefits,
ACP benefits and all other service benefits in terms of
the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Court in CWP
No.2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad vs State of H.P.
in the interest of justice and fair play.
ii) Similar relief may kindly be granted as granted in CWP
No.2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad vs State of H.P.
and CWP No.542/2024, directing the respondents to
count contract service of the petitioner for the purpose of
seniority, annual increments and all other consequential
benefits from the date of their initial appointment as the
matter is squarely covered with above mentioned
judgments."
Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
2024:HHC:10844
3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue
involved in these cases has already been adjudicated upon.
The grievance of the petitioners is that their
representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions,
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 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, these writ petitions are
disposed of by directing the respondents/competent
authority to consider and decide the aforesaid
representations of the petitioners in accordance with law
2024:HHC:10844
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
November 07, 2024 Judge
Mukesh
