CWP/16592/2024 on 31 December 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 16580/2024 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 31.12.2024

CWP No. 16580/2024 Arun Dev & Ors.

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

.…Respondents.

CWP No. 16592/2024 Reena Verma & Ors.

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

.…Respondents.

3. CWP No. 16620/2024 Kheema Ram & Ors.

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

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

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate.

For the respondent(s): Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the third financial enhancement/upgradation under the New ACP of 2012, to the petitioner, on the completion of 14 years of service as JBT teacher w.e.f. due date with all consequential benefits and the arrears accrued thereunder may kindly be ordered to be paid with interest.”

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 representations, annexed with the respective petitions, 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 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 petitions are disposed of by directing 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, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 31st December, 2024(rohit)