The court disposed of this writ petition by directing the respondent authority to decide the petitioner's representation regarding work charge status and seniority within six weeks to avoid government-induced litigation.
Direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 5446/2024 Decided on: 06.12.2024
Chhotu Ram …Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Ms. Tanu, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J
Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate
General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
2 . This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following
substantive reliefs:-
“a) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant work charge status to the petitioner as Plumber from the day, the petitioner has completed 8 years of continuous service on daily wage services i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.2003 in view of the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in LPA No. 165/2021, titled as State of H.P. and others Versus Surajmani and another decided on 12.01.2023 alongwith connected matters and in CWP No. 3111/2016 titled as
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
State of H.P. and Ors. Versus Ashwani Kumar dated 10.05.2018 with all consequential benefits.
b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant seniority and fixation of pay & consequent promotion to the petitoner w.e.f. 01.01.2003.
c) That the order of rejection of representation may be called and the same may be quashed and set aside.”
3. 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 22.12.2023 (Annexure P-3) 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 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.
5 . 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
3
within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge
06th December, 2024(rohit)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the competent authority must determine the petitioner's representation within a reasonable time to prevent unnecessary litigation.
Chhotu Ram
State of H.P.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
