Himachal Pradesh High Court
Alka Bali & Ors vs State Of Hp And Another on 1 May, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP Nos.3638, 3642,
3644 & 3646 of 2025
Date of decision: 01.05.2025
1. CWP No.3638 of 2025
Alka Bali & Ors. ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of HP and Another. ...Respondents.
2. CWP No.3642 of 2025
Naresh Dutt & Ors. ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of HP and Others. ...Respondents.
3. CWP No.3644 of 2025
Brij Pal & Ors. ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of HP and Others. ...Respondents.
4. CWP No.3646 of 2025
Rachna Gupta & Ors. ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of HP and Others. ...Respondents.
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioners : Ms. Shivangi, Advocate, vice Mr.
Vikas Rajput, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy
Advocate General.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy 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.3638 of 2025 read as under:-
"a. That respondents may kindly be directed to grant the
benefit of ACP after completion of 9 years of service as
TGTs or in alternate respondents may be directed to grant
the benefits of All ACP after completion of 4,9 and 14 years
of service, with all consequential benefits and interest @
9% on delayed payment.
b. That in alternate petitioner may also be granted the
benefits of 4-9-14, more particularly ACP after 9 years, on
the analogy of judgment passed by this Hon,ble court in
CWPOA 5536 of 2020 along with other connected matters
titled as Sanjay Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh
and others, along with all consequential benefits."
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
1st May, 2025 Judge
(Pardeep)
