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

Sanjay Kumar 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 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law within six weeks and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority should consider and decide the petitioners' representation dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) seeking grant of due and admissible benefit of Earned leave with all monetary benefits from the date of initial appointment and consequential arrears with interest @ 9% per annum.

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 representation of the aggrieved employee within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely; not deciding representations for months together gives rise to unnecessary multiplication of litigation and brings avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation, contrary to the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks, and the order so passed is to be communicated to the petitioners.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla — CWP No.1784 of 2025, decided 13th March, 2025 (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.). Petitioners (Sanjay Kumar and others) sought a writ of mandamus directing the State to grant due and admissible benefit of Earned leave with all monetary benefits from the date of initial appointment, and consequential arrears with interest @ 9% per annum, contending that the legal issue involved had already been adjudicated upon and that their representation dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) remained undecided. The Court held that where the governing legal principle is already settled, the welfare State is expected to consider and decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely, since prolonged inaction multiplies litigation and needlessly enlarges the Court docket, defeating the object of the Litigation Policy of the State. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representation in accordance with law within six weeks and to communicate the order to the petitioners.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.1784 of 2025

Decided on: 13^th March, 2025

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjay Kumar 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. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

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

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, 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:-

“I. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant due and admissible benefit of Earned leave with all monetary benefits from the date of initial appointment.

II. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the consequential arrear along with interest @ 9% per annum from due date to till the date of realization.”

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

2

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 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) 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 authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law within a period of six

3

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 March 13, 2025 Judge Mukesh