Disposed¶23

Jeevan Sharma v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Jan 2025CWP/14694/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court; CWP 14694/2024; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.; Jeevan Sharma v. State of H.P.; direction to decide pending representation dated 04.10.2024 within six weeks; Assured Career Progression Scheme (new ACPS 4/9/14) financial upgradation claim w.e.f. 01.08.2014 and 01.08.2024; arrears with interest @12% sought but matter remitted for consideration; welfare State duty to dispose representations reasonably promptly; State Litigation Policy; petition disposed, not decided on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 04.10.2024 in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the order to the petitioner; no substantive relief of ACPS upgradation or interest was granted at this stage. ¶23

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents may be directed to grant the petitioner first and third financial upgradation under the new ACPS on completion of 4 & 14 years of service w.e.f. 01.08.2014 & 01.08.2024 with all consequential benefits. +2 more

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Where the legal principle involved in the petition has already been decided, the welfare State is expected to consider and decide the aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely, as delay multiplies litigation and burdens the court docket contrary to the object of the State's Litigation Policy.

¶22

Key takeaways

The writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law within six weeks.ratio¶23
The order passed on the representation was to be communicated to the petitioner, and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, were also disposed of.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CWP No. 14694/2024, decided 04.01.2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) — Petitioner sought first and third financial upgradation under the new ACPS (4/9/14) w.e.f. 01.08.2014 and 01.08.2024 with consequential benefits, arrears and interest @12% p.a., claiming the legal issue stood already adjudicated; his representation dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) was undecided. Held: once the governing legal principle stands decided, the welfare State must decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely, consistent with the State Litigation Policy. Petition disposed of with direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the order; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 14694/2024 Decided on: 04.01.2025

¶3

Jeevan Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.

¶4

………………………………………………………………………………. Coram

¶5

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner:

¶8

Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocate.

¶9

For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶10

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

¶11

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate

¶12

General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶13

2 . This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following

¶14

substantive reliefs:-

¶15

“ 1. That the respondents may be directed to grant first and third financial enchantment/upgradation under the new ACPS on the completion of 4& 14 years of service w.e.f. 01.08.2014 & 01.08.2024 with all consequential benefits.

¶16

2. That the respondents may be further directed to calculate the arrears on account of grant of their financial upgradation under the new ACPS (4/9/14) alongwith interest @12% per annum. ”

¶17

3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in

¶18

the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

petitioner is that his representation dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) has still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority.

¶22

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.

¶23

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 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.

¶24

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶25

04^th January 2025(rohit)

Jeevan Sharma v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeevan Sharma v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rehnuma Thapa Vs the State of Hp and Others

Bandna Vs the State of Hp and Others

Neeraj Gupta and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Uma Pundir Vs the State of Hp and Others

Hitesh Kumar Vs Hrtc and Another

Pramod Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others