_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 15745 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 25 October, 2024

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.11974 of 2024 Decided on: 25th October, 2024 _________________________________________________________________ Smt. Pankaj Lata ....Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting?

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Gurinder Singh Parmar, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, 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 relief: -

"(i) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, other or direction, to the respondents, to count the services rendered by the petitioner on contract basis for the purpose of

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

seniority, increments and pension and release all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, thereby grant seniority, increments and all the consequential benefits from the initial date of appointment i.e. 03.12.2008."

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

02.10.2024 (Annexure P-4) 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 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 Judge October 25, 2024 R.Atal