_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 186 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 1 May, 2025

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7124 of 2025 Decided on: 1st May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Sandesh Kumar ....Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents _________________________________________________________________

Coram

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

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Sikandar Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Sikandar Bhushan, learned Deputy

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on

behalf of the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of

following substantive relief:-

"i) That the impugned action of the respondent department may kindly be quashed and set aside and the benefits given to the similar situated person in compliance of the judgment passed in CWP No. 842/2017 titled as State of

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

H.P. & others Vs. Sardari lal & Another alongwith all connected matters may kindly be given to the present petitioner."

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

Annexure P-3, 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 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, 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 six weeks

from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the

petitioner.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

to stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 1, 2025 R.Atal