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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petitions disposed of by directing the 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; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, whose claims to retirement benefits (computation of pension, arrear of pension, arrear of gratuity and leave encashment) are said to be covered by earlier judgments of the Hon'ble High Court, are entitled to those benefits. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Where the legal principle involved in adjudicating 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 to sit over it indefinitely, compelling the employee to approach the Court.

Key takeaways

Failure to take a decision on a representation for months together gives rise to unnecessary multiplication of litigation and brings otherwise avoidable increase to the Court's docket through unproductive government-induced litigation.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Retirement benefits – Non-disposal of representation – Writ petitions by retired employees seeking computation/arrears of pension, gratuity and leave encashment, claiming cover of Amita Gupta v. State of H.P. (CWP no.7359/2021) and H.P. Secretariat & other Affiliated Pensioners Welfare Association (CWP no.7376/2023): HELD, where the legal principle involved has already been decided, the welfare State must consider and decide the aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time and cannot sit over it indefinitely, as prolonged indecision multiplies litigation and burdens the docket with unproductive government-induced litigation. Petitions disposed of with direction to respondents/competent authority to decide the representations in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the order to the petitioners.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

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

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.

Coram:

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

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

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

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

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:-

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

-2-

“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.).

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.).

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”

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

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

-3-

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.

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.

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

07^th January, 2025 (Pardeep)

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge