Tenzin Dorje vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 463 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Tenzin Dorje vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 6 May, 2025

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Decided on: 06.05.2025 Tenzin Dorje ...Petitioner

Versus

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

........................................................................................... Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner: Mr. Pankaj Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. P.K. Nadda, Additional Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

Notice. Mr. P.K. Nadda, learned Additional Advocate

General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

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

substantive reliefs:-

"a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions to the respondent to grant the pay scale of Rs.5480-

8925 from date of his initial appointment and subsequently for pay scale of Rs. 10830 Plus 3600 grade pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 along with other consequential benefits i.e. monetary benefits, pay fixation, ACP's Arrears etc.

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

b) The respondents may be further directed to release the consequential benefits alongwith arrears alongwith interest @9% interest p.a."

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 01.09.2024 (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 06th May, 2025(rohit)