VIJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
CWP/8326/2025 · 2025-06-02
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 14028 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 14028 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 8326/2025
Decided on: 02.06.2025 Vijay Kumar & 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. Adarsh K. Vashisht, 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 relief:-
“ That the Respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the benefit of Assured Career progression Scheme in favour of the petitioner by ignoring the effect of enhancement allowed on account of implementation of 5th CPC and the pay of the petitioner my kindly be further ordered to be fixed accordingly in 6 CPC from the due date alongwith arrears and interest, in the interest of justice.”
3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
3
petitioners is that their representation dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-7) 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 2nd June, 2025(rohit)