JITENDER SINGH CHANDEL v. THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER
CWP/11190/2025 · 2025-07-11
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 20126 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 20126 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CWP No. 11190/2025
Decided on: 11.07.2025 Jitender Singh Chandel
…Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr.
.…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner:
Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional
Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J
Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
2.
The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief: -
“A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant to the petitioner the benefit of 1st financial up- gradation w.e.f. 31.05.2021 on completion of 4 years of service in a cadre under the new ACP Scheme alongwith all the consequential benefits.”
3.
According to the petitioner, 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?
2
petitioner is that his representation dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-4) has still not been decided by respondent No.2/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 respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge 11th July, 2025(rohit)