CWP/10352/2024 on 31 December 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.10352 of 2024

Decided on: 31st December, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Viplove Negi and others

…..Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P. and another

.....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned Additional 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:- “(i) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondent department, to count the services rendered by the petitioner on contract basis for the purpose of seniority, increments and pension and release all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, from the initial date of appointment i.e. 03.03.2016.

1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

(iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant and release the actual monetary benefits i.e. arrears of salary etc. to the petitioner, from the date of initial appointment along with 9% interest, in stipulated period.”

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 representation dated 09.06.2024 (Annexure P-6) 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 petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 31, 2024

Judge Mukesh