Disposed¶20

Naresh Kumar Sharma v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Jan 2025CWP/15072/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retirement benefits; computation of pension; arrear of pension; arrear of gratuity; leave encashment; representation undecided; direction to decide within six weeks; welfare State; Litigation Policy of the State; mandamus; Himachal Pradesh High Court; CWP Nos.15072 & 15078 of 2024; Naresh Kumar Sharma; Subhash Pathania; State of HP; related matters: CWP no.7359/2021 Amita Gupta v. State of H.P. & others; CWP no.7376/2023 H.P. Secretariat & other Affiliated Pensioners Welfare Association v. State of H.P. and others.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' respective representations in accordance with law within six weeks and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioners. ¶20

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representations for retirement benefits, given that the underlying legal issue has already been adjudicated.

¶15

Court's answer

Once the legal principle involved in the adjudication 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 sit over it indefinitely.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Not taking a decision on a representation for months together gives rise to unnecessary multiplication of litigation and avoidable, unproductive government-induced burden on the Court's docket.

¶18

Key takeaways

The writ petitions were disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective representations of the petitioners in accordance with law within six weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioners.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.), decision dated 07.01.2025, disposing of CWP Nos.15072 & 15078 of 2024 filed by Naresh Kumar Sharma and Subhash Pathania against the State of HP. Petitioners sought mandamus for retirement benefits (computation of pension, arrear of pension, arrear of gratuity, leave encashment), claiming their cases were covered by CWP no.7359/2021 (Amita Gupta v. State of H.P. & others) and CWP no.7376/2023 (H.P. Secretariat & other Affiliated Pensioners Welfare Association v. State of H.P. and others); their grievance was that their representations remained undecided. Held: once the legal principle stands decided, the welfare State must consider and decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely, as prolonged inaction multiplies litigation and burdens the docket with unproductive government-induced litigation. Petitions disposed of with direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representations in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the order to the petitioners.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP Nos.15072 & 15078 of 2024 Date of decision: 07.01.2025

¶3

CWP No.15072 of 2024 Naresh Kumar Sharma. ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Another ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.15078 of 2024 Subhash Pathania. ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Another ...Respondents.

¶4

Coram:

¶5

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge . Whether approved for reporting? No

¶6

For the petitioners : Ms. Divya Pathania, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶8

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

¶9

These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.15072 of 2024 read as under:-

¶10

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

¶11

-2-

¶12

“I. That the writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued and directing the respondents to hold the petitioner entitled to retirement benefits (Computation of pension, Arrear of pension, Arrear of gratuity and leave encashment etc.).

¶13

II. That appropriate orders or directions may very kindly be issued to the respondents directing them to give the retirement benefits (Computation of pension, Arrear of pension ,Arrear of gratuity and leave encashment etc.).

¶14

III. Claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by judgement judgment of Hon'ble High Court CWP no.7359/2021 titled as Amita Gupta v. State of H.P. & others and CWP no.7376/2023 titled as H.P. Secretariat & other Affiliated Pensioners Welfare Association vs state of H.P. and others”

¶15

According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their respective representations have still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority

¶16

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

¶17

-3-

¶18

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.

¶19

In view of above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective 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.

¶20

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶21

07^th January, 2025 (Pardeep)

¶22

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Naresh Kumar Sharma v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Kumar 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmla Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Seema Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kamlesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Pankaj Chandel Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ashok Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Subhash Pathania Vs the State of Hp and Others