Himachal Pradesh High Court
_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 11 November, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.12580 of 2024
Decided on: 11th November, 2024
_________________________________________________________________
Vijay Kumar & Ors ....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioners: Mr. Nitin Rishi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional
Advocate General with Ms. Menka
Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, 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 relief: -
"(i) Writ of Mandamus be issued by directing the
respondent authorities to give Annual increments
and seniority for contractual services rendered
by the petitioners and all other consequential
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
benefits arising therefrom, as the petitioners
were appointed against the vacant and
sanctioned post of Language Teacher/Shashtri,
class-III (Non-Gazetted) in terms of Recruitment
and Promotional Rules, dated 16th November,
2013 and entire recruitment process was
undertaken by the recruiting authority in terms
of statutory rules and moreover, their case is
squarely covered by the Judgment passed in
CWP NO. 2004 of 2017 which has attained
finality."
3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue
involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The
grievance of the petitioners is that his representation dated
27.10.2024 (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
petitioner 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 11, 2024
R.Atal
