Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sonia 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.7086 & 7094 of 2025
Date of decision: 01.05.2025
1. CWP No.7086 of 2025
Sonia. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP and Another. ...Respondents.
2. CWP No.7094 of 2025
Suneel Kumar. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP and Others. ...Respondents.
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioners : Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate.
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.7086 of 2025 read as under:-
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
"a. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondents by way of issuance of Writ of Mandamus to
consider the petitioner as having been appointed against
the post of Junior Office Assistant (IT) pursuant to office
order dated 27-07-2023 on regular basis for all intents
and purpose alongwith all consequential benefits and
further this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ
of Certiorari quashing the word 'contract' from the
appointment letter, issued to the petitioner on contract
basis.
b) This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue a Writ
of Mandamus directing the respondent State to pay to the
petitioner all the emoluments as they are entitled as a
regular employee in the establishment of respondents
along with 18% interest w.e.f. petitioner's date of
appointment with all consequential benefits including
counting the period for the purpose of seniority etc."
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)
