Himachal Pradesh High Court

Atma Ram Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 8 May, 2025

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.3990 & 3992 of 2025 Decided on: 8th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________

1. CWP No.3990 of 2025

Atma Ram Sharma ....Petitioner

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

2. CWP No.3992 of 2025

Sher Singh Chauhan ....Petitioner

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

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting?

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on

behalf of the respondents in both the petitions.

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

2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of

almost common relief, which has been extracted from CWP

No. 3990 of 2025:-

"i) That the petitioner may held entitled to the similar relief and orders as passed by this Hon'ble Court in judgment dated 7.7.2023 passed in CWP No. 2500 of 2021 titled Ranjit Singh Vs State of H.P.

ii) That the letter dated 27.11.2014, Annexure P-4, and office order dated 22.7.2021, Annexure P-5, have already been held to be illegal vide judgment dated 7.7.2023 passed in CWP No. 2500 of 2021 and hence the petitioner may be held entitled the benefit of notification dated 27.09.2012, Annexure P-3, with all the consequential benefits"

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 dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), 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