Rohit Kumar vs State Of Hp And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 575 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Rohit Kumar vs State Of Hp And Ors on 7 May, 2025

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP Nos.7490 & 7492 of 2025 Date of decision: 07.05.2025

1. CWP No.7490 of 2025 Rohit Kumar. ...Petitioner.

Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents.

2. CWP No.7492 of 2025 Santosh Kumar. ...Petitioner.

Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents.

Coram:

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioners : Mr. Pranav Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, 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.7492 of 2025 read as under:-

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

"i). That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to extend the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022 after taking into account the services rendered by him on contract basis as having been appointed prior to

03.01.2022, in terms of Rule 7A, as incorporated vide Notification dated 06.09.2022, and he be granted the Higher Stage of Pay i.e. 31200/- from the date he has completed two years of regular service, as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in Mohit Sharma Case (Supra).

ii) That the respondents be also directed to release the arrears of pay after fixing his pay @ Rs. 31200/- w.e.f. the date he had completed two years of regular service along with interest @ 9% p.a."

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
7th May, 2025                                        Judge
     (Pardeep)