Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 671 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Rakesh Kumar 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.4026 & 4028 of 2025 Decided on: 8th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________

1. CWP No.4026 of 2025

Rakesh Kumar Sharma ....Petitioner

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

2. CWP No.4028 of 2025

Parma Nand ....Petitioner

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

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

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Anirudh Sharma 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. 4026 of 2025:-

"a. To direct respondents to grant the petitioner regular pay Scale of Rs. 5,480-8,925 + allowances, as is legally prescribed to the post of Shastri teachers, instead of Rs. 5,000-8,100 + allowances, from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 06.02.2001 with all the consequential benefits and the arrears accrued there under with interest @9% per annum till realisation of the amount in the interest of justice and fair play.

b. To decide the representation in a time bound manner.."

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 (Annexure P-4), 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