Himachal Pradesh High Court
Munish Burathoki vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 25 February, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP Nos.16764 of 2024 and
connected matters.
Decided on: 25th February, 2025
_________________________________________________________________
1. CWP No. 16764 of 2024
Munish Burathoki ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
2. CWP No. 16766 of 2024
Man Sukh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
3. CWP No. 16768 of 2024
Rakesh Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioners: Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate
General.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional
Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on
behalf of the respondents in all the petitions.
2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of
following almost identical prayers, which have been extracted
from CWP No. 16764 of 2024:-
"(i . That the respondents may be directed to grant
first and third financial enhancement/
upgradation under the new ACPS on the
completion of 4 years of service w.e.f.
01.08.2014 with all consequential benefits.
II. That the Writ of mandamus or any other
direction may kindly be issued to the respondent
to grant the ACP benefit on competition of four
years of service in the cadre of JBT from due
date i.e from the year benefits. 2014 with all
consequential
III. That the respondents may be further directed to
calculate the arrears on account of grant of their
financial upgradation under the new ACPS
(4/9/14) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.."
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 representations,
Annexure P-2, annexed with the respective writ petitions,
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.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also
to stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
February 25, 2025
R.Atal
