Raju Ram Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Raju Ram Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 25.09.2024 (Annexure P-3), in accordance with law, within six weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s) also stand disposed of. The substantive claim for counting contractual service towards increments and pension was left for such consideration, not adjudicated.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's entire contractual service from 05.09.1997 should be counted for annual increments and pension, along with payment of arrears and interest @9% per annum (raised in the petition but not adjudicated by this Court). +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Once the legal principle involved has already been decided, the welfare State is expected to consider and decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely; prolonged indecision multiplies litigation and burdens the court docket with unproductive government-induced litigation.

Key takeaways

The petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation, in accordance with law, within six weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.15460 of 2024 (HP HC, Shimla; decision 18.12.2024; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) — A petitioner serving on contract from 05.09.1997 sought a mandamus that his contractual period be counted for annual increments and pension, with arrears and interest @9% p.a.; his representation dated 25.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) remained undecided although, per the petitioner, the underlying legal issue had already been adjudicated. Holding that where the governing legal principle is settled, the welfare State must decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time (consistent with the Litigation Policy of the State) and that months-long inaction breeds avoidable litigation, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the competent authority to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law within six weeks and to communicate the order. The entitlement question itself was not decided and was left to that consideration; pending miscellaneous applications stood disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.15460 of 2024 Date of decision: 18.12.2024

Raju Ram Sharma ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram:

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

For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned

Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-

“ That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued by directing the respondents to count the entire period of service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis w.e.f. 05.09.1997 for the purpose of annual increments and pension and furthermore, the respondents may be directed to pay the arrears of salary and revised pension to the petitioner alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date the same fell due till realization and justice be done.”

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

-2-

According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 25.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) has still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority.

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.

In view of above, the instant petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner.

-3-

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

18^th December, 2024

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

(Shamsh Tabrez)