Bablu Sandal and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.15404 of 2024 Decided on: 8th January, 2025

¶2

_________________________________________________________________ Bablu Sandal and Ors .. ..Petitioners

¶3

Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________

¶4

Coram

¶5

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶6

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta and Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocates General.

¶8

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶9

Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional

¶10

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶11

2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive relief:-

¶12

“ (i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the

¶13

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

¶14

2 -

¶15

respondents to count the contract services rendered by the petitioners for all purposes including the purposes of annual increments leave encashment, career progression scheme and for the purposes of counting the services towards pension and the contract service rendered by the petitioners may very kindly be ordered to be counted for the purposes of seniority and they may kindly be released all the consequential benefits after counting of their contract service from the date of their initial appointment by granting the arrears along with interest @9% p.a in the interest of justice and fair play..”

¶16

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 Annexure P-4, have still not been decided by the

¶17

respondents/competent authority.

¶18

4. Once the legal principle involved in the

¶19

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

¶20

3 -

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶25

January 8, 2025 R.Atal

Bablu Sandal and Others v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu Sandal and Others v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Chandel Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ashok Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Naresh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rahul Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sukh Dass Vs the State of Hp and Others

Dolly Dadwal and Others Vs State of Hp and Another