Himachal Pradesh High Court
Tripta Kumari vs State Of Hp And Ors on 1 April, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP Nos.4708, 4710, 4712,
4714, & 4716 of 2025
Date of decision: 01.04.2025
1. CWP No.4708 of 2025
Tripta Kumari. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents.
2. CWP No.4710 of 2025
Nisha Thakur. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents.
3. CWP No.4712 of 2025
Bansi Lal. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents.
4. CWP No.4714 of 2025
Jyoti Thakur. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents.
Monika Khullar. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioners : Mr. Narender Guleria & L.S.
Thakur, Advocates.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional
Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, 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.4708 of 2025 read as under:-
"(I) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be
issued thereby quashing the Annexure P-1 insofar as
petitioners have been appointed as TGT (Arts) on contract
basis against the post reserved for the persons with
disabilities category.
(II) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly
be issued thereby directing the respondents to offer
appointment to the petitioner on regular basis on the post
of TGT (Arts) from the date when appointments were
given on contract basis against the post reserved for the
persons with disabilities.
(III) That, the respondents may further be directed to grant
all consequential benefits of pay fixation, annual
increments, ACPS, seniority etc. and to calculate and pay
the arrears thereof, in a time bound manner."
3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue
involved in the cases 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 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 above, these writ petitions are 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.
The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 April, 2025
st
Judge
(Pardeep)
