Pooja Verma v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC7 May 2025CWP/7484/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularisation of contractual TGT (Medical) appointments; undecided representations; writ of mandamus and certiorari against word 'contract' in appointment letter; office order dated 20-01-2014; duty of welfare State to decide employee representation within reasonable time; Litigation Policy of the State; direction to decide representations within six weeks; Himachal Pradesh High Court; Jyotsna Rewal Dua J.; CWP Nos.7482 & 7484 of 2025; decision dated 07.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Respondents/competent authority directed to consider and decide the petitioners' respective representations in accordance with law within six weeks and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also disposed of. ¶¶26

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority ought to be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representations claiming treatment as regular appointees against the post of TGT (Medical) pursuant to office order dated 20-01-2014, with consequential benefits.

¶¶16

Court's answer

Where the legal principle governing an employee's grievance stands already 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; leaving representations undecided for months multiplies litigation and burdens the Court docket with unproductive government-induced litigation, contrary to the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State.

¶¶4

Ratio / Principle

In view of the above, the writ petitions were disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority 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 applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Two writ petitions (CWP Nos.7482 & 7484 of 2025, Ajay Kumar and Pooja Verma v. State of HP and Anr.) before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh sought declaration of the petitioners' appointment as TGT (Medical) pursuant to office order dated 20-01-2014 as regular for all intents and purposes, quashing of the word 'contract' in the appointment letters, payment of emoluments of a regular employee with 18% interest, seniority and other consequential benefits. Noting that the reliefs were almost identical, that the petitioners asserted the underlying legal issue stood already adjudicated, and that only their representations lay undecided, the Court (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) held that once the governing legal principle is decided, the welfare State must decide an employee's representation within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely, failing which litigation multiplies contrary to the State's Litigation Policy. The petitions were disposed of by directing 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.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP Nos.7482 & 7484 of 2025 Date of decision: 07.05.2025

¶3

1. CWP No.7482 of 2025 Ajay Kumar. ...Petitioner.

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of HP and Anr. ...Respondents.

¶6

2. CWP No.7484 of 2025

¶7

Pooja Verma. ...Petitioner. Versus

¶8

State of HP and Anr. ...Respondents.

¶9

Coram:

¶10

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge .

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?

¶12

For the petitioners : Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶13

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶14

Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy

¶15

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

¶16

2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.7482 of 2025 read as under:-

¶17

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

¶18

-2-

¶19

“a) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents by way of issuance of Writ of Mandamus to consider the petitioner as having been appointed against the post of TGT (Medical) pursuant to office order dated 20-01-2014 on regular basis for all intentsand purpose alongwith all consequential benefits and further this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the word 'contract' from the appointment letter, issued to the petitioner on contract basis.

¶20

b) This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent State to pay to the petitioner all the emoluments as they are entitled as a regular employee in the establishment of respondents alongwith with 18% interest w.e.f.Petitioner's date of appointment with all consequential benefits including counting the period for the purpose of seniority etc.

¶21

3. 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

¶22

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

¶23

-3-

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

any.

¶28

7^th May, 2025 (Pardeep)

¶29

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Pooja Verma v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Verma 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

Saroj Bala and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Briksha Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Nand Lal Vs the Hpsfc and Another

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Shakuntla Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Hardev Pal Vs State of Hp and Others