BAL KRISHAN SONI v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Himachal Pradesh judgment dated 2024-12-27. BAL KRISHAN SONI v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 14300 to 14305, 14311, 15890 & 15898 of 2024 Date of decision: 27. 12. 2024 1. CWP No. 14300 of 2024 Kailash Nath Sharma & Ors. ... Petitioners. Versus State of H. P. & Ors. ... Respondents. 2. CWP No. 14301 of 2024 Dhani Ram Sharma. ... Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. & Ors. ... Respondents. 3. CWP No. 14302 of 2024 Bal Krishan Soni. ... Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. & Ors. ... Respondents. 4. CWP No. 14303 of 2024 Surjeet Singh & Anr. ... Petitioners. Versus State of H. P. & Ors. ... Respondents. 5. CWP No. 14304 of 2024 Gian Chand. ... Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. & Ors. ... Respondents. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- 6. CWP No. 14305 of 2024 Raj Kumari Sharma & Anr. ... Petitioners. Versus State of H. P. & Ors. ... Respondents. 7. CWP No. 14311 of 2024 Vishweshwat Datt & Anr. ... Petitioners. Versus State of H. P. & Ors. ... Respondents. 8. CWP No.
15890 of 2024 Sita Devi. ... Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. & Ors. ... Respondents. 9. CWP No. 15898 of 2024 Gian Chand. ... Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. & Ors. ... Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Amandeep Sharma & Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Additional Advocates General, for respondents-State. -3- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The writ petitions have been filed for the grant of following substantive relief(s) extracted from one of the writ petitions:- “i). That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925 as is prescribed to the post of Shastri teacher instead of pay scale of Rs. 5000-8100 as was granted to him on his initial appointment on 01. 04.
1999, with all consequential benefits and the arrears accrued thereunder may very kindly be ordered to be released with interest @ 9% p. a. , in the interest of justice. ” 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 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 -4- 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. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua th 27 December, 2024 Judge (Pardeep)
Source: High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.