Disposed¶22

Bhagat Ram v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC22 May 2025CWP/6994/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of contractual service after eight years; mandamus; undecided representation dated 26.02.2025 (Annexure P-5); duty of welfare State to decide employee representations within reasonable time; Litigation Policy of the State; direction to decide within six weeks and communicate order; Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; CWP No.6994 of 2025; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

What did the court decide?

Respondents/competent authority directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 26.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law within six weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶22

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing regularization of his service after completion of eight years of service on contract basis, along with all consequential benefits. +1 more

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Once the legal principle involved in the adjudication of the petition 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 sit over it indefinitely.

¶21

Key takeaways

Not taking a decision on a representation for months together gives rise to unnecessary multiplication of litigation and avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government-induced litigation, contrary to the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.6994 of 2025 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.; decided 22nd May, 2025): Petitioner sought mandamus for regularization of service after completion of eight years on contract basis with consequential benefits; his grievance was that his representation dated 26.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) remained undecided despite the legal issue having allegedly been adjudicated upon. Held: once the legal principle stands decided, the welfare State must consider and decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely; prolonged inaction multiplies litigation and needlessly burdens the Court docket, contrary to the Litigation Policy of the State. Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority 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.6994 of 2025

¶3

Decided on: 22^nd May, 2025

¶4

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhagat Ram …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the Petitioner: Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate.

¶12

For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶13

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶14

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

“i. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents and the respondents may kindly be directed to grant regularization of service in favour of the petitioner after completion of eight years of service on contract basis along with all consequential benefits.”

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

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 26.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) has still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority.

¶21

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.

¶22

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 26.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law within a period of six

¶23

¶24

weeks from today. The order so passed be also

¶25

communicated to the petitioner.

¶26

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

¶27

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

¶28

Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 22, 2025 Judge Mukesh