Madan Lal v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Apr 2025CWP/2774/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: regularization TGT (Medical); representation undecided; reasonable time; welfare State; Litigation Policy of the State; government-induced litigation; six weeks; Annexure P-8; Himachal Pradesh High Court; CWP 2774 of 2025; Jyotsna Rewal Dua. Useful for: directions to competent authorities to decide pending employee representations within a time frame. No statute, precedent, or monetary amount is cited or awarded; relief is confined to disposal of the representation.

What did the court decide?

Respondents/competent authority directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 01.08.2024 (Annexure P-8) in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the order so passed to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶¶21

Madan Lal Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to regularize the petitioner's services against the post of TGT (Medical) w.e.f. 01.05.2003 with all consequential benefits alongwith interest. +1 more

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

Once the legal principle involved in the adjudication has already been decided, the welfare State is expected to consider and decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely compelling the employee to approach the Court.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

Non-decision of a representation for months together gives rise to unnecessary multiplication of litigation and brings an otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket through unproductive government-induced litigation.ratio¶¶20
Timely consideration and decision of an employee's representation is also the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State.ratio¶¶20
Writ petition disposed of with direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 01.08.2024 (Annexure P-8) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madan Lal v. State of H.P. and others, CWP No.2774 of 2025 (HP High Court, Shimla, decided 01.04.2025, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.): Petitioner sought regularization as TGT (Medical) w.e.f. 01.05.2003 with consequential benefits and interest; his immediate grievance was the non-decision of his representation dated 01.08.2024 (Annexure P-8), the legal issue involved having already been adjudicated. Held: once the legal principle is settled, the welfare State must decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time; sitting over it for months multiplies litigation and needlessly burdens the Court docket, contrary to the purport and object of the State's Litigation Policy. Petition disposed of with direction to decide the representation in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the order to the petitioner.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.2774 of 2025

¶3

Decided on: 1^st April, 2025

¶4

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Madan Lal …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents

¶7

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

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶11

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

“i. That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner against the post of TGT (Medical) w.e.f. 01.05.2003 with all consequential benefits alongwith interest.”

¶15

3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue

¶16

involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 01.08.2024 (Annexure P-8) has still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority.

¶20

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.

¶21

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 petitioner dated 01.08.2024 (Annexure P-8) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner.

¶22

¶23

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

¶24

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

¶25

any.

¶26

April 01, 2025 Mukesh

¶27

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge