Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vijay Kumar 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 Nos. 11312 & 11328/2024
Decided on: 29.10.2024
CWP No.11312/2024
Vijay Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
CWP No.11328/2024
Sarika Kumari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
...........................................................................................
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaul & Ms. Sheetal
Kaul, Advocates.
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.
CWP No.11328/2024 has been filed for the grant of
following substantive reliefs:-
"(a) That the respondents may be directed to give regular
appointment to the petitioner as members of service in the cadre
of 'Shastri/TGT (Sanskrit)' from the date of initial appointment i.e.
21.02.2012(Annexure P-1) (contract basis) and count the service
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
of petitioner rendered on 'contract basis' for the purpose of
seniority, pension, annual increment, earned leave, carrier
progression scheme alongwith all other consequential benefits,
from the date of his initial appointments alongwith interest @ 9%
per annum w.e.f., the date when the same fell due till its actual
realization, in the interest of law and justice.
b) That during the pendency of the present writ petition the
respondents may kindly be Y directed to consider and decide the
representation dated 13.07.2024(Annexure P- 3) in a time bound
manner, in terms of judgment passed in CWP No. 2004/2017 titled
as Taj Mohd. Vs State of H.P. & Ors., decided 03.08.2023
(Annexure P-2), in the interest of law and justice."
CWP No.11312/2024 has been filed for the grant of
following substantive reliefs:-
"(a) That the respondents may be directed to give regular
appointment to the petitioner as members of service in the cadre
of 'Drawing Master' from the date of initial appointment i.e.
23.12.2016(Annexure P-1) (contract basis) and count the service
of petitioner rendered on 'contract basis' for the purpose of
seniority, pension, annual increment, earned leave, carrier
progression scheme alongwith all other consequential benefits,
from the date of his initial appointments alongwith interest @ 9%
per annum w.e.f., the date when the same fell due till its actual
realization, in the interest of law and justice.
b) That during the pendency of the present writ petition the
respondents may kindly be directed to consider and decide the
representation dated 23.07.2024(Annexure P- 4) in a time bound
manner, in terms of judgment passed in CWP No. 2004/2017 titled
as Taj Mohd. Vs State of H.P. & Ors., decided 03.08.2023
(Annexure P-2), in the interest of law and justice."
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 representations dated 13.07.2024 (Annexure
P-3) & dated 23.07.2024 (Annexure P-4) 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
29th October, 2024(rohit)
