Savita Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 595 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Savita Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 7 May, 2025

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7308 of 2024 Date of decision: 07.05.2025 Savita Sharma. ...Petitioner.

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

Coram:

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

For the petitioner : Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : 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. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of

following substantive relief:-

"i). Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued, directing the Respondents to grant 3rd financial enhancement/up-gradation under the new ACPS (4-9-14) on the completion of 14 years of regular service.

ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the consequential arrear along with interest @ 9% per annum from due date to till the date of realization."

1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue

involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The

grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated

28.08.2024 (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 their

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.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

any.

                                       Jyotsna Rewal Dua
7thMay, 2025                                Judge
(Pardeep)