Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sher Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others on 6 May, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.7392 of 2025
Decided on: 6th May, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sher Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate
General.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional
Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on
behalf of the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of
following substantive reliefs:-
"i) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the
Writ in the nature of mandamus, order or directions to
the Respondents to regularize the services of the
Petitioner w.e.f. the date when the Petitioner has
completed their two years' service on contract basis,
and also grant the benefit of High stage of Pay of
41,600 being a covered matter by the law laid down by
this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 29.11.2024
(Annexure-P/5) in CW.P. No. 1638 of 2024 titled as
Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Mohit Sharma & Others Vs State of HP & Others
whereby it has to be held that incumbents are entitled
to the benefit of higher stage of pay under Rule 7(A) of
the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) First
Amendment Rules, 2022, notified on 06.09.2022, on
completion of two years of regular service.
ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the
Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
Respondents to Grant Higher Stage of Pay in the
Concerned Level of Pay Matrix i.e. Rs. 41600/-and fix
their pay from due date i.e. after completion two years
of regular service with all consequential benefits
including the arrears along with interest @ 9%."
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 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-6) 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 dated 10.03.2025
(Annexure P-6) in accordance with law within a period of six
weeks from today. The order so passed be also
communicated to the petitioner.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
May 06, 2025 Judge
Mukesh
