Himachal Pradesh High Court
_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 22 November, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.13386 of 2024
Decided on: 22nd November, 2024
_________________________________________________________________
Naresh Kumar and Anr. ....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Mr. L.N.Sharma,
Additional Advocates General with
Ms Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate
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.
2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of
following substantive reliefs: -
"(I) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other order, writ or directions may kindly be
issued, is the respondents to grant the 3rd
benefit of ACP to the petitioners on completion of
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
14 years of regular service in the cadre of TGT
from due date i.e., from the year 2015 with all
consequential benefits in terms of the
instructions dated 09.08.2012, 07.07.2014 &
09.09.2014.
II. That Writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ order or directions may be
issued to directing the Respondents to also pay
the consequential arrears alongwith interest @9%
per annum."
3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue
involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The
grievance of the petitioner is that their representation dated
09.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) 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 dated
09.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) 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.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also
to stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
November 22, 2024
R.Atal
