Baldev Singh vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 15854 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Baldev Singh 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. 11526/2024 Decided on: 28.10.2024

Baldev Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.

........................................................................................... Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Seema Azad, Advocate.

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 relief:-

"That the writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant work charged status to the petitioner with all consequential benefits alongwith seniority, continuity with effect from due date when he completed his 8 years of service i.e. from 2023 as per ratio laid down in LPA No. 165/2021 titled as State of H.P. Vs. Surajmani & Anr. decided on 12.01.2023 by this Hon'ble Court."

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

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

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

petitioner is that his representation dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure P-3)

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

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 28th October, 2024(rohit)