VANITA AND OTHERS 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 2024-12-31. VANITA AND OTHERS 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 No. 10056/2024 Decided on: 31. 12. 2024 Vanita & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H. P. & Ors. . …Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “ That the respondents may very kindly be directed to count the services of the petitioner from initial appointment on contract basis till regularization for the purpose of seniority, promotion, annual increments, pensionary benefits and other consequential benefits in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble in CWP No. 2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad Vs. State of H. P. ” 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 12. 12. 2023 (Annexure P- Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 4-colly) 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 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 petitioners, 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, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge st 31 December, 2024(rohit)
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.