_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 655 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_________________________________________________________________ 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.4086 of 2025 Decided on: 8th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Gurdev Singh & Ors ....Petitioners

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

Coram

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

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Parveen Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondents:                    Mr. L.N.Sharma and                       Mr. Y.P.S.
                                        Dhaulta,  Additional                      Advocates
                                        General.



Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

                  Notice.       Mr.      L.N.Sharma,            learned          Additional

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on

behalf of the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of

following substantive reliefs:-

"i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other directions may kindly be issued, to the respondents to grant the benefit of Assured

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

Career Progression Scheme on completion of 9 years of regular service w.e.f. 1.10.2016 with all consequential benefits in terms of the notification dated 09.08.2012 & instructions dated 07.07.2014 & 09.09.2014.

ii. That Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may be issued to directing the Respondents to also pay the consequential benefits of ACPS on completion of 9 years of service alongwith interest @9% per annum."

3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue

involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The

grievance of the petitioners is that their representations dated

23.11.2024 [Annexure P-9(colly)], 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

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 representations of the

petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six

weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated

to the petitioners.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

to stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 8, 2025 R.Atal