Himachal Pradesh High Court
Satish Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 19 November, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP Nos.9772 of 2024 and
connected matters
Decided on: 19th November, 2024
_________________________________________________________________
1. CWP No. 9772 of 2024
Satish Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
2. CWP No. 9774 of 2024
Ranju Kumari ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
3. CWP No. 9776 of 2024
Virender Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Renu and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting?
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta and Mr.
L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocates
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 in all the petitions.
2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of
following common substantive reliefs: -
"a. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents
to regularize the services of the petitioner with
effect from the date of his initial
engagement/appointment with all consequential
benefits on the principle of equality as they is
appointed on commission basis under same
requisition of seats as per unamended Rules.
b. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents to release the entire consequential
benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of his initial appointment to till the
date of realization.
c. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents to extend the same and similar
benefits as has been extended to Sh. Jitender
Kumar and Ashok Kumar vide office dated
08.08.2024."
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 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 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 19, 2024
R.Atal
