Disposed¶17

Ram Pal and Others v. the Secretary (Education) and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Dec 2024CWP/15505/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ACP Scheme 4-9-14 years; financial upgradation for stagnation of TGTs; parity with Sanjay Kumar (CWPOA 5536/2020, 01.11.2023) and Hem Raj Verma (CWP 13398/2024, 22.09.2024); undecided legal notices/representations dated 08.09.2024; welfare State duty to decide representations within reasonable time; Litigation Policy of the State; six-week direction to competent authority; Himachal Pradesh High Court; single judge Jyotsna Rewal Dua; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' legal notices/representations in accordance with law within six weeks and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶17

Ram Pal and Others Vs the Secretary (Education) and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the ACP Scheme for 4, 9 and 14 years of service (financial enhancements/upgradations for stagnation in the cadre of TGTs, w.e.f. due date, with consequential benefits), as in similarly situated adjudicated matters. +1 more

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Since 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; months-long delay multiplies unnecessary litigation and avoidably increases the court docket through unproductive government-induced litigation.

¶16

Key takeaways

The respondents/competent authority were directed to consider and decide the petitioners' legal notices/representations in accordance with law within six weeks, and the order so passed is to be communicated to the petitioners.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Ram Pal & Ors. v. State of H.P., CWP No.15505 of 2024 (HP High Court, Shimla; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.; decided 18.12.2024): Petitioner TGTs sought ACP Scheme benefits for 4, 9 and 14 years of service on parity with CWPOA No. 5536/2020 (Sanjay Kumar vs. State of HP & Ors., dated 01.11.2023) and CWP No. 13398/2024 (Hem Raj Verma vs. State, decided 22.09.2024); grievance was that their legal notices/representations dated 08.09.2024 (Annexure P-6 colly.) remained undecided. Held: once the legal principle stands decided, the welfare State must decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time; prolonged inaction multiplies litigation and burdens the docket, contrary to the Litigation Policy of the State. Petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representations in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the order to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, disposed of likewise.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.15505 of 2024 Date of decision: 18.12.2024

¶3

Ram Pal & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram:

¶4

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

¶5

For the petitioners : Mr. Parav Sharma & Mr. Shekhar Badola, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶6

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶7

Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

“i. That the Petitioners may kindly be held entitled for the benefit of ACP Scheme of 4, 9, and 14 years of service as in case of the other similarly situated matter in CWPOA No. 5536/2020 titled as “Sanjay Kumar vs. State of HP & Ors.” dated 01.11.2023, at Annexure P-7 and CWP No. 13398/2024 titled as “Hem Raj Verma vs. State” decided on 22.09.2024 at Annexure P-8 by giving them the financial enhancements/upgradations for their stagnation in the cadre of TGTs for 4, 9 & 14 years of service, w.e.f. due date with all consequential benefits.”

¶11

According to the petitioners, the legal issue

¶12

involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The

¶13

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

¶14

-2-

¶15

grievance of the petitioners is that their legal notices/representations stated to be filed on 08.09.2024 (Annexure P-6 colly.) have still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority.

¶16

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 their 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.

¶17

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid legal

¶18

notices/representations 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.

¶19

-3-

¶20

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

¶21

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

¶22

any.

¶23

Jyotsna Rewal Dua 18^th December, 2024 Judge (Shamsh Tabrez)

Ram Pal and Others v. the Secretary (Education) and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pal and Others v. the Secretary (Education) and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjula Thakur Vs the State of Hp and Another

Joginder Paul Vs Hptdc and Others

Naresh Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Pritam Chand and Others Vs the Secretary (Education) and Another

Santosh Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Another

Raju Ram Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others