Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25164 (HP)

VISHAL CHONA v. STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/158/2025 · 2025-02-27

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 158/2025 Decided on: 27.02.2025 Vishal Chona …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Ms. Manjeet Kaur and Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocates vice Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of Earned Leave by crediting in the account of the petitioner as has already been granted to the petitioners in CWP No. 5043/2022 b) That the respondents may kindly decide the representation of the petitioner which is annexed as Annexure P-6 .” 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 09.10.2024 Annexure P-6 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 in-definitely 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 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 27th February, 2025(rohit)