Himachal Pradesh High Court

Sant Ram vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 6 June, 2025

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Decided on: 06.06.2025 Sant Ram ...Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. ........................................................................................... Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner: Ms. Bhawna, Advocate vice Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4.

                                         Mr.    Naveen K. Bhardwaj,
                                         Advocate, for respondent No.5.


Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate

General and Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel, accept notice

on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and 5.

2. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following

substantive reliefs:-

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

"(i) That the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for work-charge Status/regularisation after 8 years of daily waged services i.e. 31.12.2003 with all consequential benefits.

ii) That in alternative the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization/work-charge Status after 8 years of daily waged services i.e. 1.1.2002 in view of the judgment rendered in CWP No. 2735/2010 titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs State of H.P. & Other."

3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in

the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the

petitioner is that his representation dated 12.04.2024 (Annexure P-4)

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

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 representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law,

within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also

communicated to the petitioner.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also

stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 6th June, 2025(rohit)