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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-9) in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the respondent department to pay the petitioner revised pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925 from the date of appointment, with further revision of pay scale from time to time and pay fixation accordingly. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

Where 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.

Key takeaways

Failure to take a decision on an employee's representation for months together gives rise to unnecessary multiplication of litigation and avoidable increase to the Court docket through unproductive government-induced litigation; timely decision on representations is the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.), by judgment dated 10.03.2025 in CWP No.1688 of 2025 (Anil Kumar Walia v. State of H.P. & Ors.), disposed of the writ petition seeking mandamus for revised pay scale of 5480-8925 from date of appointment with periodic revision, pay fixation and consequential arrears with interest. Since the petitioner stated that the underlying legal issue had already been adjudicated and only his representation dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-9) remained undecided, the Court directed the competent authority to consider and decide that representation in accordance with law within eight weeks and communicate the order. The Court observed that once the legal principle is settled, the welfare State must decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time, consistent with the object of the State's Litigation Policy, as prolonged inaction multiplies litigation and burdens the Court docket with unproductive government-induced litigation.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.1688 of 2025 Date of decision: 10.03.2025

Anil Kumar Walia. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.

Coram:

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

For the petitioner : Mr. Devender Sharma, 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. Writ in nature of the mandamus may be issued directing the respondent department to pay the petitioner revised pay scale of rupee 5480-8925 from the date of appointment with further revision of pay scale from time to time and pay fixation be made accordingly in the interest of Justice and fair play.

b. That the respondents may also be directed to Pay the arrear of consequential benefits with interest from the date of accrual till date of realization.”

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 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-9) 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 eight

-3-

weeks 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.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua 10^th March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)