CWP/10428/2024 on 31 December 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 10428/2024

Decided on: 31.12.2024 Seema Sharma & Ors.

…Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors.

.…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………….

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Amrick Singh, Advocate.

For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ (i) That the respondent may kindly be directed to count the entire service of the petitioners, including initial service on contract basis i.e. from February 2014 followed by regularization i.e. 2017 towards seniority alongwith all consequential benefits being a covered matter by the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 03.08.2023 in CWP No. 2004/2017 a/w CWP No. 629/2018 upholding the judgment dated 25.05.2017 passed by the erstwhile Learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

3337/2016 whereby the service rendered by the employees concerned on contract basis has been ordered to be counted for the purpose of seniority along with consequential benefits.

(ii) That act of the respondents by not counting the services rendered by the petitioners on contract basis as JBT Teachers for the purpose of seniority along with all consequential benefits may kindly be held unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified, unwarranted, invalid, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 03.08.2023 in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 a/w CWP No. 629/20,18 upholding the judgment dated 25.05.2017 passed by the erstwhile learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA NO. 3337/2016.”

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 27.02.2024 (Annexure P-

4) 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 redresssal 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 above, the instant petition is disposed of by directing 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 31st December, 2024(rohit)