Himachal Pradesh High Court
Lata Thakur vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 27 February, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.2302 of 2025
Date of decision: 27.02.2025
Lata Thakur. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner : Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate, vice
Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate.
For the respondents : 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. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of
following substantive reliefs:-
"a) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
the writ of mandamus whereby, the respondents may
kindly be direct to considered the case of the petitioner
for deed regularization since from the date of initial
appointment of the petitioner on contract basis to the post
of JBT, along with all consequential benefits.
b) That the contract entered between the petitioner and the
respondents at the time of initial appointment of the
petitioner and further on annual basis till the date of
regularization may kindly be considered as null and
void.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
c) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release
all the consequential benefits including the arrears along
with interest @ 12% till the date of realization."
3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue
involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The
grievance of the petitioner is that her representation
(Annexure P-1) has 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 their
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, this writ petition is disposed
of by directing the respondents/competent authority to
consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the
petitioner in accordance with law within a period of eight
weeks from today. The order so passed be also
communicated to the petitioner.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms,
so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
27 February, 2025
th
Judge
(Pardeep)
