Disposed¶18

Ravi Kant v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Mar 2025CWP/1390/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

earned leave; date of regularization 1.1.2007; undecided representation dated 05.10.2024; direction to decide representation within six weeks; welfare State duty; Litigation Policy of the State; office memorandum dated 6.7.2020; certiorari; mandamus; CWP 5043 of 2022 Sunita Sangroli Versus State of H.P.; Himachal Pradesh High Court; Jyotsna Rewal Dua; Ravi Kant v. State of H.P.; CWP No.1390 of 2025; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 05.10.2024 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law within six weeks and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶18

Ravi Kant Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of certiorari should issue quashing and setting aside the office memorandum dated 6.7.2020 (Annexure P-5). +2 more

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Once the legal principle involved in the adjudication of the petition has already been decided, the welfare State is expected to consider and decide the representation of the aggrieved employee within a reasonable time and not to sit over it indefinitely, compelling the employee to approach the Court.

¶14

Key takeaways

Failure to take a decision on an employee's representation for months together gives rise to unnecessary multiplication of litigation and an avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government-induced litigation, contrary to the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State.ratio¶14
Writ petition disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 05.10.2024 in accordance with law within a period of six weeks.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (Single Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) - Ravi Kant v. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No.1390 of 2025, decided 05.03.2025. Petition sought (i) certiorari to quash office memorandum dated 6.7.2020 and (ii) mandamus for earned leave benefit from date of regularization i.e. 1.1.2007 in view of CWP 5043 of 2022, Sunita Sangroli Versus State of H.P. Grievance: representation dated 05.10.2024 (Annexure P-5) undecided despite the legal principle standing adjudicated. Held: where the legal principle stands decided, the welfare State must consider and decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time; months-long inaction multiplies litigation and burdens the docket contrary to the State's Litigation Policy. Petition disposed of with direction to decide the representation in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the order; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of likewise. No merits determination on the memorandum or the earned leave claim; CWP 5043 of 2022 appears only in the petitioner's quoted prayer.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.1390 of 2025 Date of decision: 05.03.2025

¶3

Ravi Kant. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram:

¶4

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

¶5

For the petitioner : Ms. Nandita, Advocate, proxy Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶6

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶7

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶8

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

¶9

“a. That writ in nature of the certiorari may be issued and office memorandum dated 6.7.2020 may kindly quashed and set aside (annexure P-5 )

¶10

b. That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent to grant benefit of earned leave to the petitioner from the date of regularization i.e.1.1.2007 in view of judgment passed in CWP 5043 of 2022 titled as Sunita Sangroli Versus State of H.P. with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play.”

¶11

1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶12

-2-

¶13

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 05.10.2024 (Annexure P-5) has still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority.

¶14

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.

¶15

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks

¶16

-3-

¶17

from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner.

¶18

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

¶19

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

¶20

any.

¶21

5^th March, 2025 (Pardeep)