Disposed¶5

Shaila Kothari and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC9 May 2025CWP/4388/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assured Career Progression Scheme; 5th CPC enhancement ignored; financial upgradation w.e.f. 01.10.2012; interest and arrears; representation dated 10.02.2025 undecided; direction to decide within six weeks; welfare State duty to decide representations timely; Litigation Policy of the State; multiplication of litigation; Himachal Pradesh; CWP 2025; Jyotsna Rewal Dua.

What did the court decide?

Respondents/competent authority directed to consider and decide the representations dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-7) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of the order, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ¶5

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representations dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-7) seeking grant of Assured Career Progression Scheme benefits by ignoring the enhancement allowed on account of implementation of the 5th CPC, along with financial upgradation/enhancement due w.e.f. 01.10.2012, interest and arrears.

¶2

Ratio / Principle

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

¶4

Key takeaways

Not taking a decision on an employee's representation for months together gives rise to unnecessary multiplication of litigation and brings an otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government-induced litigation; this runs contrary to the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State.ratio¶4
The writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representations dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-7) in accordance with law within six weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioners.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petitions (CWP Nos.4286, 4288 and 4388 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh) filed by State employees seeking grant of Assured Career Progression Scheme benefits by ignoring the enhancement allowed on implementation of the 5th CPC, with financial upgradation/enhancement claimed w.e.f. 01.10.2012 along with interest and arrears. Grievance confined to non-decision of representations dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-7). HELD: once the legal principle involved stands already adjudicated, the welfare State is expected to consider and decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely; months-long inaction multiplies litigation and avoidably increases the Court docket on unproductive government-induced litigation, contrary to the State's Litigation Policy. Petitions disposed of directing the competent authority to decide the representations in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the order. (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.4286 of 2025 alongwith connected matters

¶3

Decided on: 9^th May, 2025

¶4

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. CWP No.4286 of 2025 Narayan Dass and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. CWP No.4288 of 2025 Anil Kumar and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3. CWP No.4388 of 2025 Shaila Kothari and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶5

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

¶6

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶8

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶9

2. All these writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive relief in CWP No.4286 of 2025 reads as under:-

¶10

“i) That the Respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme in favour of the petitioner by ignoring the effect of enhancement allowed on account of implementation of 5^th CPC and the due and admissible financial up gradation/enhancement falling due in favour of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.10.2012, may kindly be allowed in favour of the petitioners along with interest and arrears, in the interest of justice.”

¶11

3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in these cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-7), have still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority.

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

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.

¶15

5 . In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-7) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners.

¶16

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶17

May 09, 2025 Mukesh

¶18

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Shaila Kothari and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaila Kothari and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Ankush Anand and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Prof. Arvind Kumar Agrawal Vs Union of India and Anr.

Rajgir Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Asha Rani Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others