Himachal Pradesh High Court
Cwp No. 11300/2024 vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 29 October, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CWP No. 11300/2024 a/w connected matters.
Decided on: 29.10.2024
1. CWP No. 11300/2024
Anukriti Gaur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
2. CWP No. 11302/2024
Nitin Gautam ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
3. CWP No. 11307/2024
Prerna ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
4. CWP No. 11308/2024
Bhagat Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
5. CWP No. 11331/2024
Pradeep Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
Meenakshi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
Narvada Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
Dinesh Kaushal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
Monisha ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
Virender Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
Puran Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
Suman Thakur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
Sandeep Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
...........................................................................................
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners: Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General
with 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. The writ petitions have been filed for the grant of
following substantive reliefs:-
"a. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued
thereby directing the respondents to count the period of contract
service of the petitioner for the purpose seniority, annual
increments and all other consequential benefits.
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
b. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued
thereby directing the respondents to decide the pending respective
representations of the petitioner in time bound manner."
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 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
respective 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
29th October, 2024(rohit)
