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.12112 of 2024
Decided on: 22nd November, 2024
_________________________________________________________________
Sunita Verma & Ors ....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. H.S.Rana, Advocates.
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 this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue
the Writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly
be issued directing the Respondents to Count the
services rendered by Petitioners as Junior Basic
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
Teachers as qualifying service for the purpose of
pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as well
as for annual increments, in view of the
Judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in
CWP/2004/2017 Tai Mohammad along with all
consequential benefits.
ii. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue
the Writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly
beissued directing the Respondents to release
the arrears along with interest @ 9% p.a.
iii That Respondent may kindly directed to
consider/decide the Representation of the
Petitioner (Annexure P-6) with in time bound
manner."
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 representations
[Annexure P-6 (colly)], annexed with the petition, 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, this writ petition is 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.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also
to stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
November 22, 2024
R.Atal
