Himachal Pradesh High Court
Arvind Kumar & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 28 October, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CWP No. 11518/2024
Decided on: 28.10.2024
Arvind Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
...........................................................................................
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma & Mr. Ranbir
Rathore, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional
Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J
Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate
General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following
substantive reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to count
the services of the petitioners from their initial appointment on
contract basis till their regularization for the purpose of seniority,
increments, pensionery benefits and other consequential benefits
in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble in CWP No.
2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad Vs/ State of H.P., CWPOA No.
1745/2020 titled as Chaman Lal & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. recently
in CWP No. 529/2023 titled as Arun Kumar Vs. State of H.P. in the
interest of justice.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release
the entire consequential benefits along with interest @9% per
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
annum from the date of their appointment to the date of
realization."
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 respective representations dated 11.03.2024,
14.03.2024, 23.03.2024, 27.03.2024, 08.04.2024, 19.04.2024,
22.04.2024 & 25.04.2024 (Annexure P-2 colly) 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 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
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, shall also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
28th October, 2024(rohit)
