Disposed¶21

Suresh Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Dec 2024CWP/15305/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Counting of contract-basis service from initial appointment for increments, seniority, pension, pay scale and other benefits upon regularization; revision of clerk seniority list; mandamus for decision of pending employee representations dated 18.10.2024; welfare State to decide representations within reasonable time; Litigation Policy of the State; six-week compliance direction; Himachal Pradesh High Court; CWP No. 15290/2024 with CWP Nos. 15303/2024 and 15305/2024; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge; decided 16.12.2024.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representations dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the orders passed to the petitioner(s); pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. ¶21

Suresh Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire service rendered on contract basis from the initial appointment date should be counted for increments, seniority, pension, pay scale and other benefits from the date of regularization, with the seniority list for clerk revised/redrawn accordingly. +1 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Proceeding on the footing that the legal principle involved had already been adjudicated, the welfare State is expected to consider and decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely; this accords with the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State.

¶18

Key takeaways

Not taking a decision on a representation for months together would give rise to unnecessary multiplication of litigation and otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation.obiter¶20
The petitions were disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective representations dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law within six weeks and to communicate the orders passed; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge), by order dated 16.12.2024, disposed of CWP No. 15290/2024 alongwith connected matters (CWP Nos. 15303/2024 and 15305/2024). Petitioners, engaged on contract basis and thereafter regularized, sought mandamus to count the entire contract-basis service from the initial appointment date for increments, seniority, pension, pay scale and other benefits from the date of regularization, and to revise/redraw the clerk seniority list accordingly. Since, per the petitioners, the underlying legal issue had already been adjudicated and their representations dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) were lying undecided, the Court held that a welfare State must consider and decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely, this being the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State; prolonged inaction multiplies litigation and burdens the docket with unproductive government-induced litigation. The petitions were disposed of with a direction to decide the representations in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the orders; pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 15290/2024 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 16.12.2024

¶3

1 CWP No. 15290/2024 Mohit Sahgal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents.

¶4

2 CWP No. 15303/2024 Sahil & Anr. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 3 CWP No. 15305/2024 Suresh Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram

¶5

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

¶8

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate

¶9

General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶10

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶11

¶12

2 . These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of

¶13

following substantive reliefs:-

¶14

“ a) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to count the entire service rendered on a contract basis from the initial appointment date for increments, seniority, pension, pay scale, and other benefits, from the date of regularization.

¶15

b) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revise/redraw the seniority list for clerk to include the entire service rendered on a contract basis from the initial appointment date for all benefits.”

¶16

3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in

¶17

the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their respective representations dated 18.10.2024 at Annexure P-3 have still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation.

¶21

5 . In view of above, the instant petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective representations dated 18.10.2024 of the petitioner(s) at Annexure P-3, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶22

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶23

16^th December, 2024(rohit)

Suresh Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratibha Kumari and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Kuldeep Singh Vs Rohan Chand Thakur

Luxmi Dutt Vs Dalip Singhy Alias Dulab Singh through His Lrs Sumitra Devi and Others

Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Another

Sahil and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Lekh Raj Vs the Hrtc and Others