Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 14 November, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP Nos.12824, 12826, 12827 & 12829 of 2024
Date of decision: 14.11.2024
1. CWP No.12824 of 2024
Sandeep Kumar. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents.
2. CWP No.12826 of 2024
Jasbir Singh. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents.
3. CWP No.12827 of 2024
Sanjay Kumar. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents.
4. CWP No.12829 of 2024
Sanjay Randhawa. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents.
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No
For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Rocky & Mr. Sohail Khan,
Advocates.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional
Advocate General.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate
General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of
the respondents.
2. The writ petitions have been filed for the grant of
following substantive relief(s) extracted from one of the writ
petitions:-
"a). Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the
respondent department to count the service of petitioner
rendered in contract basis for the purpose of seniority,
pension, annual increment and career progression
scheme with all other consequential benefits from the
date of initial appointment on contract basis in the
interest of justice.
b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the
respondent department to count the service of petitioner
rendered in contract basis for the purpose of earned
leave from the date of initial appointment on contract
basis in the interest of justice."
3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue
involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The
grievance of the petitioners is that their respective
representations 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 in-definitely 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 above, these writ petitions are disposed
of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider
and decide the respective representations 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 petitions stand disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
4 November, 2024
th
Judge
(Pardeep)
