CWP/16686/2024 on 31 December 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.16686 of 2024

Decided on: 31st December, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bihari Lal

…..Petitioner

Versus

HPSEB Limited and others

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

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Vandana Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Ms. Vandana Misra, learned Standing Counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner from the due date with all consequential benefits alongwith interest for delayed payment.”

3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon.

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

The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated nil (Annexure P-3) 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 respondent-Board 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, as is applicable to the respondent-Board. 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 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner.

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