JAGRITI AND ANOTHER 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 2024-12-23. JAGRITI AND ANOTHER 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. 15930 of 2024 rd Decided on: 23 December, 2024 _________________________________________________________________ Jagriti & Anr .... Petitioners Versus State of H. P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Nikhil Katwal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L. N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L. N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs: - “(i) That respondents be directed to treat the appointment of the petitioners as appointment on regular basis from the date of their initial for appointment i. e.
, with effect from year 2021 as mentioned in annexure P-2. ii) That the respondents be directed to release all Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 -consequential benefits to the petitioners in view of his regularization with effect from year 2021 i. e. increments, regular pay scale and all other benefis which are available to regular employees etc. ” 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 representation dated 11. 11. 2024 (Annexure P-5) 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 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 - 3 -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 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 20, 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.