BAL KRISHAN 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 v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 16214 of 2024 and connected matters th Decided on: 27 December, 2024 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 16214 of 2024 Uttam Chand ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and others ….. Respondents _______________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 16217 of 2024 Bal Krishan ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and others ….. Respondents _______________________________________________________ 3. CWP No. 16218 of 2024 Dina Nath ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and others ….. Respondents _______________________________________________________ 4. CWP No. 16219 of 2024 Prem Lal ….. Petitioner Versus - 2 - State of H. P. and others ….. Respondents _______________________________________________________ 5. CWP No. 16220 of 2024 Shakti Parsad ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and others ….. Respondents _______________________________________________________ 6. CWP No.
16221 of 2024 Satpal ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and others ….. Respondents _______________________________________________________ 7. CWP No. 16222 of 2024 Yog Raj ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and others ….. Respondents _______________________________________________________ 8. CWP No. 16223 of 2024 Shakti Kumar ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and others ….. Respondents - 3 - _______________________________________________________ 9. CWP No. 16224 of 2024 Madan Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and others ….. Respondents _______________________________________________________ 10. CWP No. 16225 of 2024 Desh Raj ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and others ….. Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s): Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.
Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Dalip Sharma and Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Balwinder Singh and Mr. Manish Thakur, Deputy Advocates General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Manish Thakur, learned Deputy Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 4 - Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of following identical substantive reliefs (prayers have been extracted from CWP No. 16214 of 2024): - “ (i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of the pay scale of Rs.
5480-8925 as is -prescribed to the post of Shastri Teacher instead of pay scale of R$, 1500-2700 as was granted to them on his initial appointment with all consequential benefits and arrears accrued thereunder may very kindly be ordered to be released with interest @ 9% per annum in the interest of justice as has been granted by this Hon'ble Court in Madan Lal's case. ii. That the respondents may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner field on 29. 10. 2024 Annexure P-2 in the interest of justice and fair play. ” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievances of the petitioners are that their representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions, 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 - 5 -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 the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 27, 2024 R. Atal
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.