Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.14680, 14681, 14682, 14683, 14684, 14685, 14686, 14687, 14688, 14689 of 2024 Date of decision: 02.01.2025
1. CWP No.14680 of 2024 Vaneeta Kumari ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Ors.
...Respondents.
2. CWP No.14681 of 2024 Upender Kaundal ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Ors.
...Respondents.
3. CWP No.14682 of 2024 Ajay Kumar
...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Ors.
...Respondents.
4. CWP No.14683 of 2024 Anuradha
...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Ors.
...Respondents.
5. CWP No.14684 of 2024 Vipan Kumar
...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Ors.
...Respondents. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
-2-
6. CWP No.14685 of 2024 Vindesh Kumari ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Ors.
...Respondents.
7. CWP No.14686 of 2024 Deepa Chaudhary ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Ors.
...Respondents. ____________________________________________________________
8. CWP No.14687 of 2024 Monika Devi ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Ors.
...Respondents
9. CWP No.14688 of 2024 Ajay Singh Rana ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Ors.
...Respondents
10. CWP No.14689 of 2024 Sangita Kumari ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Ors.
...Respondents
Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
-3- For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Dalip K. Sharma and Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General, for respondents-State. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.14680 of 2024 read as under:-
“a. That, respondents may kindly be directed to count the service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis prior to their regularization for the purpose of seniority, Pay fixation, promotion, annual increments, Pension etc. along with all consequential benefits. b. That respondents may further be directed to extend the benefits of judgments mentioned in para 11 (Annexure P- 3) to petitioner as well being similarly situated to the petitioners of these judgments and their services rendered on contract basis may be taken into
consideration toward seniority, pay fixation, increments Promotion etc.”
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 respective
-4- representations 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 redressal 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, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective 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.
-5- The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 02nd January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)