Himachal Pradesh High Court
_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 13 May, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.7804 of 2025
Decided on: 13th May, 2025
_________________________________________________________________
Anjna Sharma ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate
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:-
"1. That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued
directing the respondents to grant to the
petitioner the benefit of higher stage of pay of Rs.
40100/- from the date the petitioner has
completed two years of regular service i.e.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
17.01.2024 as per the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 1638/2024 titled Mohit
Sharma versus State of H.P & others. Further
direct the respondents to release to the
petitioners all the consequential benefits along
with arrears at the rate of 9% per annum.
2. That the respondents may also be directed to
release the arrears of pay after fixing the pay of
the petitioner at Rs. 40100/- w.e.f the date the
petitioner completed two years of regular service
i.e. 17.01.2024 along with interest @ 9% per
annum."
3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue
involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The
grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated
17.04.2025 (Annexure P-2), 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 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, also
to stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
May 13, 2025
R.Atal
