Pawan Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 15611 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Pawan Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 24 October, 2024

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

( 2024:HHC:10199 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 11192/2024 Decided on: 24.10.2024 Pawan Kumar . ...Petitioner

Versus

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

........................................................................................... Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate,

For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate

General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

matter is heard at this stage.

2. This writ petitions have been filed for the grant of

following substantive relief:-

"(i) That the respondents may very kindly be pleased to direct the respondent by way of issuance of Writ of mandamus to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment as per Annexure P-1 for all intents and purpose and further this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the word 'Contract' from the office order dated

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

( 2024:HHC:10199 )

03.06.2022 qua the petitioner by granting him regularization from the date of his initial appointment.

(ii) This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent State to pay the petitioner all the emoluments as the petitioner is entitled at par with regular employee in the establishment of respondent w.e.f. 03.01.2022 with all consequential benefits including counting the period for the purpose of seniority etc."

3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in

the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the

petitioner is that his representation dated 07.04.2024 (Annexure P-5)

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 in-definitely compelling the employee to come to the Court for

redresssal 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 above, the instant petition is disposed of by

directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the

( 2024:HHC:10199 )

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. Pending miscellaneous

application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 24th October, 2024(rohit)