Asha Devi vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 17858 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Asha Devi vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 21 November, 2024

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13350 of 2024 Date of decision: 21.11.2024

Asha Devi. ...Petitioner.

Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.

Coram:

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate

General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of

the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of

following substantive reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus and appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondent department to treat the petitioner as having been appointed in the year 2002 with all consequential benefits for all intents and purposes.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the entire consequential benefits alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of her appointment till the date of its actual realization."

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue

involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The

grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated

30.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) 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 her

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 petitioner.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

any.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua 21 November, 2024 th Judge (Pardeep)