Mukul Jishtu Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mukul Jishtu Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the order to him; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of. No monetary relief or interest adjudicated.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-3) claiming treatment as appointed as JOA (IT) on regular basis from his initial appointment with consequential benefits, and within what time.

Court's answer

Where the legal principle involved has already been decided, the welfare State is expected to consider and decide the representation of an aggrieved employee within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely; prolonged inaction multiplies litigation and adds avoidable burden to the Court's docket, contrary to the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State.

Ratio / Principle

The respondents/competent authority were directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law within six weeks and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CWP No.12551 of 2024, decided 12.03.2025) by Sandeep Sharma, J., High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla — Disposed of. Petitioner sought mandamus directing consideration as appointed JOA (IT) on regular basis from initial appointment with consequential benefits, contending the legal issue stood already adjudicated and his representation (Annexure P-3) was undecided. Held: once the legal principle involved has already been decided, the welfare State must consider and decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely, as delay breeds avoidable litigation contrary to the State Litigation Policy. Directed respondents/competent authority to decide the representation in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the order to the petitioner. No statute or precedent engaged; no monetary relief awarded.

2025:HHC:5791

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.12551 of 2024

Date of Decision: 12.03.2025

_______________________________________________________ Mukul Jishtu …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioner: Ms. Reeta Goswami, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Rekha Kumari and Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate

General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

following main relief:-

“1. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the petitioner as having been appointed as JOA (IT) on regular basis from the date of his initial appointment. The respondents are further directed to release all consequential benefits.

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

2025:HHC:5791

-2-

That the Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay all the emoluments as a regular employee in the Department concern along with 18% interest w.e.f. petitioner’s date of appointment with all consequential benefits including counting the period for the purpose of seniority etc.”

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 (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 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 above, present petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the

2025:HHC:5791

-3-

representation (Annexure P-3) 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.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms,

so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

March 12, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)