AMAR SINGH AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
CWP/4870/2025 · 2025-05-19
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7725 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7725 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4870 of 2025
Date of decision: 19.05.2025 Amar Singh & Ors.
...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.
...Respondents.
Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, 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(s):-
“i). 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 due and admissible financial up gradation/enhancement falling due in favour of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.10.2012, may kindly be allowed in favour of the petitioners along with interest and arrears, in the interest of justice.”
-2-
3.
According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representation dated 10.02.2024 (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 redressal of their 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 the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six
-3-
weeks from today. The
order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua 19th May, 2025
Judge (Pardeep)