Anil Kumar Vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Anil Kumar Vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the order passed to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, disposed of. No relief on the merits of regularization was granted.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the respondent-Corporation to regularize the petitioner's services from his initial appointment i.e. from 28.09.2015, strictly in accordance with the Apex Court decision in HRTC v. Lekh Ram and this Court's decision in Gaurav v. HRTC (CWP No. 1157 of 2020), with consequential service benefits and payment of arrears alongwith interest @ 9% per annum flowing out of his regularization as Conductor w.e.f. 28.09.2015. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Once the legal principle involved in the adjudication of the 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 it indefinitely, compelling the employee to approach the Court; indecision on representations multiplies litigation and needlessly burdens the Court's docket (consistent with the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State).

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law within six weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioner. The merits of regularization were not decided by this Court.ratio¶22
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP No.4056 of 2025) by a Conductor of HRTC appointed on 28.09.2015, praying for mandamus to regularize his services from the date of initial appointment in terms of the Apex Court decision in HRTC v. Lekh Ram (Civil Appeal Nos. 1557-1564 of 2019) as applied in Gaurav v. HRTC (CWP No. 1157 of 2020), with consequential benefits and arrears with 9% interest. Grievance: representation dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure P-6) lying undecided. Held (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.), disposing of the petition: once the legal principle involved stands decided, the welfare State is expected to consider and decide the aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely; prolonged inaction breeds avoidable, government-induced litigation contrary to the Litigation Policy of the State. Directed the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the order to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s) disposed of. Merits of regularization left open.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No.4056 of 2025 Decided on: 8^th May, 2025

_________________________________________________________________ Anil Kumar ....Petitioner Versus HRTC & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

1 Whether approved for reporting?

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Parveen Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned Counsel

appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

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

“i ) That by issuing writ of mandamus, the respondent-Corporation may be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e from 28.09.2015, strictly in accordance with the

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

2 -

decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1557-1564 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16158-16165/2016) titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation Versus Lekh Ram Etc. Etc., which attained finality in terms of judgment rendered by this Hon,ble Court in the case Gaurav Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation in CWP No. 1157 of 2020 with all consequential service benefits.

ii) That the respondents may further be directed to pay arrears alongwith interest 9% per annum flowing out of his regularization as Conductor w.e.f. 28.09.2015.”

3. 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 22.12.2022 (Annexure P-6) 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

3 -

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 petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 8, 2025 R.Atal