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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-7) in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of the order, and the order so passed to be communicated to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-7), which seeks grant of pay scale of Rs. 10830 plus 3600 grade pay from date of initial appointment along with consequential benefits, arrears and interest @9% p.a.

Court's answer

Once the legal principle involved has already been decided, it is expected of the welfare State to consider and decide the representation of the aggrieved employee within a reasonable time and not to sit over it indefinitely, thereby compelling the employee to come to Court for redressal.

Ratio / Principle

Not deciding an employee's representation for months together gives rise to unnecessary multiplication of litigation and an otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket through unproductive government-induced litigation; timely decision is also the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CWP No.1516 of 2025, decided 07.03.2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla) - Naresh Kumar v. State of H.P. & Ors.; Bench: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua (Judge-author). Petitioner sought (a) pay scale of Rs. 10830 plus 3600 grade pay from date of initial appointment with consequential benefits (monetary benefits, pay fixation, ACP arrears), and (b) release of those benefits with arrears carrying interest @9% p.a. He contended that the underlying legal issue had already been adjudicated upon and that his sole grievance was the non-decision of his representation dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-7). Holding: once the governing legal principle has been settled, the welfare State must consider and decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time rather than sit over it indefinitely; prolonged non-decision multiplies litigation, needlessly burdens the Court docket with unproductive government-induced litigation, and runs contrary to the purport and object of the State's Litigation Policy. Disposition: petition disposed of (not adjudicated for entitlement); respondents/competent authority directed to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the order passed; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, likewise disposed of. No statute or precedent is cited or engaged in the judgment; no quantum was fixed or awarded by the court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.1516 of 2025 Date of decision: 07.03.2025

Naresh Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.

Coram:

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

For the petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : 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.

This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-

“A. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions to the respondent to grant the pay scale of Rs. 10830 Plus, 3600 grade pay from date of his initial appointment along with other consequential benefits i.e. monetary benefits, pay fixation, ACP's Arrears etc.

B. The respondents may be further directed to release the consequential benefits along with arrears along with interest @9% interest p.a.”

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

-2-

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 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-7) has 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 their 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.

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks

-3-

from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

any.

7^th March, 2025 (Pardeep)

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge