Disposed¶18

Monika Khullar v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Apr 2025CWP/4716/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Timely disposal of employee representation; welfare State cannot sit over representation indefinitely once legal principle is settled; CWP Nos.4708/4710/4712/4714/4716 of 2025, HP High Court Shimla, decided 01.04.2025 by Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua; TGT (Arts) contract appointments against persons with disabilities reserved posts; representations to be decided in six weeks; State Litigation Policy; unproductive government-induced litigation.

What did the court decide?

Respondents/competent authority directed to consider and decide the respective representations of the petitioners 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. ¶18

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority are obliged to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representations within a reasonable time, the legal principle involved in the petitions having already been adjudicated.

¶16

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 aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time and not to sit over it indefinitely, compelling the employee to approach the Court for redressal.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Failure to take a decision on an employee's representation 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.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.), deciding CWP Nos.4708, 4710, 4712, 4714 & 4716 of 2025 on 01.04.2025: five petitioners appointed as TGT (Arts) on contract basis against posts reserved for persons with disabilities sought quashing of the contract appointments (Annexure P-1), regular appointment from the date of contractual appointment, and consequential benefits of pay fixation, increments, ACPS, seniority and arrears. Noting that the legal principle involved stood already adjudicated and that the grievance was non-disposal of their representations, the Court held that once the legal principle is decided, the welfare State must consider and decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely; months-long inaction multiplies litigation and burdens the docket, contrary to the State Litigation Policy. Writ petitions disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representations in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the orders.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

	CWP Date	Nos.4708, 4710, 4712, 4714, & 4716of 2025 of decision: 01.04.2025
1. CWP No.4708 of 2025
Tripta Kumari.		...Petitioner.
	Versus
State of HP and Ors.		...Respondents.
2. CWP No.4710 of 2025
Nisha Thakur.		...Petitioner.
	Versus
State of HP and Ors.		...Respondents.
3. CWP No.4712 of 2025
Bansi Lal.		...Petitioner.
	Versus
State of HP and Ors.		...Respondents.
4. CWP No.4714 of 2025
Jyoti Thakur.		...Petitioner.
	Versus
State of HP and Ors.		...Respondents.
5. CWP No.4716 of 2025
Monika Khullar.		...Petitioner.
	Versus
State of HP and Ors.		...Respondents.

¶3

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

¶4

-2-

¶5

Coram:

¶6

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

¶7

For the petitioners : Mr. Narender Guleria & L.S. Thakur, Advocates. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶8

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.4708 of 2025 read as under:-

¶12

“(I) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing the Annexure P-1 insofar as petitioners have been appointed as TGT (Arts) on contract basis against the post reserved for the persons with disabilities category.

¶13

(II) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner on regular basis on the post of TGT (Arts) from the date when appointments were given on contract basis against the post reserved for the persons with disabilities.

¶14

(III) That, the respondents may further be directed to grant all consequential benefits of pay fixation, annual increments, ACPS, seniority etc. and to calculate and pay the arrears thereof, in a time bound manner.”

¶15

-3-

¶16

According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their respective representations have still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority

¶17

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.

¶18

In view of above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective representations of the petitioners, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from

¶19

-4-

¶20

today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners.

¶21

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

¶22