ASHWINI KUMAR SHARMA v. THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER
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. ASHWINI KUMAR SHARMA v. THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 16196 of 2024 and connected matters . th Decided on: 27 December, 2024 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 16196 of 2024 Anil Chandel ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and Anr. ….. Respondents _______________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 16227 of 2024 Ashwani Kumar Sharma ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and Anr. ….. Respondents _______________________________________________________ 3. CWP No. 16228 of 2024 Purushottam Kumar Sharma ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and Anr. ….. Respondents _______________________________________________________ 4. CWP No. 16229 of 2024 Ashok Kumar ….. Petitioner Versus - 2 - State of H. P. and Anr. ….. Respondents _______________________________________________________ 5. CWP No. 16230 of 2024 Raj Kumar Sharma ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and Anr. …..
Respondents _______________________________________________________ 6. CWP No. 16231 of 2024 Rajiv Kumar Sondhi ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and Anr. ….. Respondents _______________________________________________________ 7. CWP No. 16233 of 2024 Jitender Kumar Sharma ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and Anr. ….. Respondents . _______________________________________________________ 8. CWP No. 16234 of 2024 Sanjeev Sharma ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and others ….. Respondents - 3 - _______________________________________________________ 9. CWP No. 16235 of 2024 Raman Kumar Abhilashi ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and Anr. ….. Respondents _______________________________________________________ 10. CWP No. 16308 of 2024 Suresh Kumar Banyal ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and Anr. ….. Respondents _______________________________________________________ 11. CWP No. 16311 of 2024 Durga Dass ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and Anr. …..
Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s): Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Dalip Sharma and Mr. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 4 - 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 Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents in all the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of following identical substantive reliefs (Prayers have been extracted from CWP No. 16196 of 2024): - “ (i) That the action of the respondents in fixing the basic pay of the petitioner at Rs. 10300+5000 Grade Pay i. e. Rs.
15300/- instead of Rs. 13450+5000 Grade Pay i. e. Rs. 18450/- may be declared to be wrong and illegal ii) That the petitioner may kindly be held entitled to initial basic pay of Rs. 18450/- in the pay band of Rs. 10300-34800+5000 Grade Pay as per Schedule, Fitment Table and provisions of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009. iii) That the respondents may further be directed to pay all the arrears with effect from 06. 10. 2016 pursuant to fixation of basic pay at Rs. 18450/-in the pay band of Rs. 10300-34800+5000 Grade Pay as per Schedule, Fitment Table and provisions of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009. ” - 5 - 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is 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 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 - 6 -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.