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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondents/competent authority directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representations in accordance with law within six weeks and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the service rendered by the petitioners on contract basis from the date of initial appointment is to be counted for seniority, pension, annual increment, career scheme/progression and other consequential benefits. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

Once the legal principle involved in the adjudication of the present petitions 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 it indefinitely; not taking a decision on representations for months together gives rise to unnecessary multiplication of litigation and avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government-induced litigation, contrary to the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State.

Key takeaways

The writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations in accordance with law within a period of six weeks, and the order so passed is to be communicated to the petitioners.ratio¶24
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, in the writ petitions also stand disposed of.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla (Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua), decided 03-01-2025: disposed of two connected writ petitions, CWP Nos.14914 & 14992 of 2024, filed by contract-appointed employees (Nitika Bansal & Ors.; Bandna) against the State of H.P., praying that service rendered on contract basis from the date of initial appointment be counted for seniority, pension, annual increment, career scheme/progression, other consequential benefits and earned leave. Since the petitioners asserted that the underlying legal issue had already been adjudicated and their annexed representations lay undecided, the Court held that a welfare State must consider and decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely, as prolonged silence multiplies litigation and avoidably burdens the Court docket on unproductive government-induced litigation, contrary to the State's Litigation Policy. The writ petitions were accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to decide the representations in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the orders to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No statute or precedent was cited; the merits of the contract-service counting claims were left to be examined by the competent authority.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.14914 & 14992 of 2024 .

Decided on: 3^rd January, 2025

1. CWP No.14914 of 2024 Nitika Bansal & Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 14992 of 2024 Bandna ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

1 Whether approved for reporting?

_________________________ For the petitioner(s):	_________________ Mr. Devender	____________ K. Sharma,	___________ Advocate.
For the respondents:	Mr. Dalip Advocate Gen	K.Sharma eral.	Additional

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned Additional

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on

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

2 -

behalf of the respondents in both the petitions.

2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of

following almost common reliefs (prayers have been extracted from CWP No. 14914 of 2024): -

“(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent department to count the service of petitioner rendered in contract basis for the purpose of seniority, pension, annual increment and career scheme along with progression all other consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment on contract basis in the interest of justice.

b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent department to count the service of petitioner rendered in contract basis for the purpose of earned leave from the date of initial appointment on contract basis in the interest of justice..”

3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue

involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions, have 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

3 -

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

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

January 3, 2025 R.Atal