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

Mushu Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others — 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' representations in accordance with law within six weeks and to communicate the orders so passed to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. No monetary relief was awarded and the pay-scale claim itself was left for consideration by the competent authority.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to consideration for grant of the pay scale of Rs. 16402925 as prescribed to the post of Shastri Teacher, instead of the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2700 granted at initial appointment, with consequential benefits, arrears and interest @ 9% per annum as granted in Madan Lal's case. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Since the legal principle involved in the adjudication of the present petitions 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 to sit over it indefinitely; failure to decide representations for months together multiplies litigation and burdens the Court's docket with unproductive government-induced litigation, contrary to the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State.

Key takeaways

The writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations in accordance with law within a period of six weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.), decision dated 18.03.2025, disposing of eight connected writ petitions (CWP Nos. 3670, 3672, 3674, 3676, 3677, 3678, 3679 and 3680 of 2025). Petitioners sought directions to the respondents to consider them for the pay scale of Rs. 16402925 prescribed to the post of Shastri Teacher in place of the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2700 granted at initial appointment, with consequential benefits, arrears and interest @ 9% per annum as granted by the Court in Madan Lal's case, and to decide their representations (Annexure P-2; in the lead case filed on 30.11.2024). Noting that the legal issue involved stood already adjudicated upon and that the sole grievance was the non-decision of the representations, the Court held that the welfare State must consider and decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely, as delay multiplies litigation and adds unproductive government-induced litigation to the Court's docket, contrary to the State's Litigation Policy. The petitions were disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representations in accordance with law within six weeks and to communicate the orders to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. No statute was cited; 'Madan Lal's case' was only referred to within the relief clause.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 3670/2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 18.03.2025

1 CWP No. 3670/2025 Mushu Ram …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2 CWP No. 3672/2025 Madhu Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 3 CWP No. 3674/2025 Arvind Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.

4	CWP No. 3676/2025
	Natho Ram	…Petitioner
	Versus State of H.P. & Ors.	.…Respondents.
5	CWP No. 3677/2025
	Sudarshan Kumar	…Petitioner
	Versus State of H.P. & Ors.	.…Respondents.
6	CWP No. 3678/2025
	Subhadra Devi	…Petitioner
	Versus State of H.P. & Ors.	.…Respondents.

2

7 CWP No. 3679/2025

Gautam Kumar …Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.

8 CWP No. 3680/2025

Chaju Ram …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the petitioner(s): Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

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

General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

2 . These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of

almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 3670/2025:-

“ (i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of the pay scale of Rs. 16402925 as is prescribed to the post of Shastri Teacher instead of pay scale of Rs. 1500-2700 as was granted to them on his initial appointment with all consequential benefits and arrears accrued

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

3

thereunder may very kindly be ordered to be released with interest @ 9% per annum in the interest of justice as has been granted by this Hon'ble Court in Madan Lal's case.

(ii) That the respondents may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner filed on 30.11.2024 Annexure P-2 in the interest of justice and fair play.”

3. According to the petitioner(s), the legal issue involved in

the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations, annexed with the respective petitions at Annexure P-2, have 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 redresssal 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 above, the instant petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the

4

aforesaid representation(s) of the petitioner(s), in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

18^th March, 2025(rohit)