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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. The substantive claims (counting of contractual service for pension/increments, arrears with interest @ 9% p.a.) were left for consideration by the competent authority and were not adjudicated by the Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority can indefinitely withhold decision on the petitioner's representation dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-4), which seeks counting of the petitioner's contractual service as Junior Basic Teacher towards qualifying service for pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and for annual increments, when according to the petitioner the underlying legal issue has already been adjudicated.

Court's answer

Once the legal principle involved in the adjudication of a 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, compelling the employee to approach the Court for redressal.

Ratio / Principle

Not taking a decision on a representation for months together gives rise to unnecessary multiplication of litigation, contrary to the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State.

Key takeaways

The petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of the order.ratio¶23
The order so passed is to be communicated to the petitioner, and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service Law – Pension – Contractual service – Petitioner (Junior Basic Teacher on contract basis) sought mandamus to count contract service as qualifying service for pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and for annual increments, relying on this Court's judgments in Jagdish Chand and Harbaksh Singh, with arrears and interest @ 9% p.a.; grievance confined to non-disposal of representation dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-4) – Held: once the legal principle is already 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 indecision multiplies litigation and burdens the Court's docket contrary to the State's Litigation Policy – Petition disposed of with direction to respondents/competent authority to decide the representation in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the order; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 15094/2024 Decided on: 04.01.2025

Pramod Kumar …Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & Ors.

.…Respondents.

………………………………………………………………………………. Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the petitioner: Mr. M.A. Safee, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned Additional

Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

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

substantive relief:-

“ i) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to Count the services rendered by the Petitioner as Junior Basic Teachers on Contract Basis as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as well as for annual increments, in view of the Judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Jagdish Chand and Harbaksh Singh Case (Supra) along with all consequential benefits.

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

2

ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to release the arrears along with interest @ 9% P.a.”

3. 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 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-4) has 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 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.

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

3

communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

04^th January 2025(rohit)