Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jitender Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 29 October, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.11330 of 2024
alongwith connected matters
Decided on: 29th October, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CWP No.11330 of 2024
Jitender Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh .....Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CWP No.11332 of 2024
Sudershana Kumari .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikke Ram .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Thakur and Ms. Anita Devi,
Advocates in CWP No.11330 of 2024.
Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Advocate in
CWP No.11332 of 2024.
Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate in
CWP No.11704 of 2024.
Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General
with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr. L.N.
Sharma, Additional Advocates General.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional
Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on
behalf of the respondents.
2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant
of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP
No.11330 of 2024 read as under:-
"a) That the directions may kindly be issued to the
respondents to count the contractual service of the
petitioner with effect from the date of his initial
appointment on contractual basis for all intents and
purposes i.e. annual increments, pay scales/higher pay
scale after completion of two years of service, qualifying
service for promotion, credit of earned leave etc. and
direct to release all consequential benefits as per the
judgment passed by this Hon'ble court in CWP No.2004
of 2017 titled as Sh. Taj Mohammad and Ors. Vs. State
of H.P. alongwith connected matter decided on
03.08.2023 and in CWPOA No.3282 of 2019 titled as
Dr. Ranjeet Singh Thakur and ors vs State of H.P. and
others, decided on 24.11.2023.
b) That the respondent department may kindly be directed
to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner from
the due date with interest @ 12% per annum till the date
of realization.
c) That the respondents kindly be directed to decide the
representation (Annexure P-3) in the light of judgments
passed by this Hon'ble court in CWP No.2004 of 2017
titled as Sh. Taj Mohammad and Ors. Vs. State of H.P.
alongwith connected matter decided on 03.08.2023 and
in CWPOA No.3282 of 2019 titled as Dr. Ranjeet Singh
Thakur and ors vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on
24.11.2023 and grant all consequential benefits to the
petitioner same as has been granted to other similar
situated person as per the judgments supra in time
bound manner."
3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue
involved in these cases has already been adjudicated upon.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the representations
preferred by them 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 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, these writ petitions are
disposed of by directing the 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.
The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
October 29, 2024 Judge
Mukesh
