Ravinder Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 6079 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Ravinder Kumar 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

Decided on: 27.05.2025

Ravinder Kumar ...Petitioner

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

........................................................................................... Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner: Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate.

For the respondents: 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. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following

substantive relief:-

" That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to confer upon the petitioner work charge status after completion of eight years of daily wages service w.e.f. 01.01.2005 with all consequential benefits."

3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in

the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the

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

petitioner is that his representation dated 04.04.2025 (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 27t May, 2025(rohit)