Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 13 November, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.12704 of 2024
Date of decision: 13.11.2024
Anil Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioners : Mr. Ranbir Rathore and Mr.
Tarun Sharma, Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional
Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
this writ petition be treated as having been filed only on
behalf of petitioners No.1 to 5, 7 to 9, 11 to 18, 25, 28, 29,
34, 35, 37, 38, 42, 44 and 45 only, i.e. employees posted in
District Mandi and the remaining petitioners be permitted to
file separate writ petitions. Prayer is accepted. Ordered
accordingly.
This writ petition is now treated to have been filed
on behalf of petitioners No.1 to 5, 7 to 9, 11 to 18, 25, 28,
29, 34, 35, 37, 38, 42, 44 and 45 only.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate
General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of
the respondents.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of
following substantive reliefs:-
"(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued where by
respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit
of assured career progression scheme on completion of 4
years of regular service from the due date along with all
consequential benefits.
(ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued whereby
respondents may kindly be directed to pay the arrears of
the consequential benefits along with 9% per annum from
the due date till the date of realization."
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
17.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) 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 their
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
13 November, 2024
th
Judge
(Pardeep)
