Sajjan Singh vs State Of H.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 6097 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Sajjan Singh vs State Of H.P. And Another on 27 May, 2025

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8854 of 2025 Decided on: 27th May, 2025

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sajjan Singh                                                      .....Petitioner


                                                   Versus


State of H.P. and another                                     .....Respondents

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting? 1

For the Petitioner: Mr. Dheeraj Kanwar, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned

Deputy 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:-

"a. Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit directing the Respondent to treat the contractual appointment/ service of the petitioner as Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) w.e.f. 29.08.2006 as regular service with all consequential benefits and thus consequential modify/quash the order dated order dated 29.08.2006

Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

Annexure P-1, as well as 20.08.2020 Annexure P-2 accordingly.

b. Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit directing the Respondent to give the benefit of regular service to the Petitioner with effect from the initial dates of their appointment on contractual terms ( i.e. 29.08.2006) with all consequential benefits, for all intents and purposes along with interest.

c. Consequentially Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, directing the Respondent to consider the service of the Petitioners to be reckoned for seniority and for all terminal benefits as and when they fall due and pay of the Petitioner accordingly be fixed. d. Accordingly Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, directing the Respondent to pay arrears of salary payable to the Petitioner on regular basis w.e.f.29.08.2006 and be computed and paid over to them within one month from the date of the order along with interest and all consequential benefits.

3. In Alternative Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstance of the case by directing the respondent to consider the representation dated 15.07.2024 in terms of the law as well as the Judgment dated 22.08.2022 in CWP No.1077/2019 (Nitin Kumar vs State of HP), within a time bound manner."

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 15.07.2024 (Annexure P-5) 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 15.07.2024

(Annexure P-5) 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 27, 2025                                             Judge
     Mukesh