Himachal Pradesh High Court
Raj Kumar Thakur vs State Of H.P. And Others on 24 October, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.11910 of 2024
alongwith connected matters
Decided on: 24th October, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CWP No.11910 of 2024
Raj Kumar Thakur .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CWP No.11912 of 2024
Neelam Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitika Thakur .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Mr. L.N. Sharma
and Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional
Advocates General.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned
Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of
notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant
of following identical substantive relief:-
"(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing
the respondents to grant the benefit of increment of ACP
Scheme to the petitioner on completion of his 4-9-14
years of service on one post and one pay scale, with all
consequential benefits, in terms of the Assured Career
Progression Scheme as well as in terms of judgment
dated 01.11.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in
CWPOA No.5536/2020, titled as Sanjay Kumar &
others v/s State of H.P. & others alongwith connected
matters (Annexure P-1)."
3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue
involved in these cases has already been adjudicated upon.
The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations
each dated 25.08.2024 (Annexure P-3 in these cases) 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 petitions stand disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
October 24, 2024 Judge
Mukesh
