Himachal Pradesh High Court
_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 8 November, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.12564 of 2024
Decided on: 8th November, 2024
_________________________________________________________________
Jitender Mohan & Ors ....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioners: Mr. jagmohan Chandel, Advocate
vice Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur,
Advocate.
For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy
Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy
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 a writ in the nature of mandamus may
kindly be issued directing respondent
department to consider the respective cases of
petitioners for regularization with effect from the
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
date of their initial appointment i.e. 2010 with all
due and admissible consequential benefits in
terms of the judgment in case LPA No. 54 of
2013titled as State of H.P. versus Om Prakash,
Annexure P-4 by Hon'ble Court of Himachal
Pradesh.
(ii). That a writ in the nature of mandamus may
kindly be issued directing respondent
department to decide the representation
Annexure P-5, in a time bound manner in the
interest of justice.
3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue
involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The
grievance of the petitioners is that their representation dated
06.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) 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
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 petition stands disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
November 8, 2024
R.Atal
