Romila Devi and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Romila Devi and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representation dated 28.04.2024 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the order so passed to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' denial of counting of the petitioners' contractual service as qualifying service for promotion, annual increment, seniority, pension and other consequential benefits should be quashed, and whether a mandamus should issue to count such contractual service for those purposes. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Where 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; failure to decide representations for months together multiplies litigation and burdens the Court docket with unproductive government-induced litigation, contrary to the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State.

Key takeaways

The writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representation in accordance with law within a period of six weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioners; the merits of counting contractual service as qualifying service were left to the competent authority's consideration.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA — CWP No.16778 of 2024, decided 01.01.2025 by Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua (single Judge). Romila Devi and others v. State of H.P. and another. Petitioners sought (A) certiorari to quash the respondents' action denying counting of contractual service as qualifying service for promotion/increment/seniority/pension and other consequential benefits, and (B) mandamus to count contractual service for qualifying service for the next promotional post, annual increment, seniority and pensionary benefits. They asserted the legal issue stood already adjudicated and complained that their representation dated 28.04.2024 (Annexure P-5) had not been decided. Holding that once the legal principle stands decided the welfare State must consider and decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time — consistent with the object of the State's Litigation Policy, since indefinite delay breeds multiplication of litigation and unproductive government-induced litigation — the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law within six weeks and to communicate the decision to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were likewise disposed of. The merits of counting contractual service were not adjudicated by this Court and were left to the competent authority. No statute or precedent was cited.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.16778 of 2024

Decided on: 1^st January, 2025

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Romila Devi and others …..Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P. and another

.....Respondents

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioners: Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned

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

2. 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 Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned action of the Respondents whereby the petitioner has been denied the counting of contractual service as qualifying service for the purpose of promotion/increment/ seniority/pension and other consequential benefits.

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

2

B. That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to count the contractual services for the purpose of qualifying service for next promotional post and the same may also be counted for the grant of annual increment/seniority and other consequential benefits i.e., qualifying service for the purpose of promotion and pensionary benefits.”

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 representation dated 28.04.2024 (Annexure P-5) 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 redressal 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 the above, this writ petition is

disposed of by directing the respondents/competent

3

authority to consider and decide the aforesaid

representation 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 petition stands disposed of in the above

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

Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 01, 2025 Judge Mukesh