Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 15872 HP
Judgement Date : 28 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11558/2024 Decided on: 28.10.2024
Bachan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
........................................................................................... Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Virender Thakur, 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:-
"(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant pensionary benefit with arrears w.e.f. the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sunder Singh Versus State of H.P. or any other benefit for which he is legally entitled on the basis of Rakesh Kumar & State of HP and others such as arrear of pay, arrear of pension, increments, seniority etc, till the date of his regularization alongwith interest."
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 06.03.2024(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 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)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!