Himachal Pradesh High Court
Cwp No. 7168/2025 vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 27 May, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CWP No.7168/2025 a/w connected matters
Decided on: 27.05.2025
1. CWP No. 7168/2025
Rakesh Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
2. CWP No. 7186/2025
Baljinder Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
3. CWP No. 7188/2025
Vinay Chander ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
4. CWP No. 7302/2025
Priti Choudhary ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
5. CWP No. 7304/2025
Kehar SinghBains & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
Kumari Suman ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
...........................................................................................
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondent(s): Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional
Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J
Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate
General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of
almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted
from CWP No. 7168/2025:-
"(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued, directing
the respondents to grant 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 alongwith interest @9% per annum due
date to till the date of realization."
3. According to the petitioner(s), the legal issue involved in
the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the
petitioner(s) is that their representations, annexed with the respective
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
petitions, 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
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 petitions are disposed of
by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide
the aforesaid representations of the petitioner(s), in accordance with
law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be
also communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
27th May, 2025(rohit)
