Disposed¶21

Pawan Kumar Verma v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC13 May 2025CWP/7816/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ACP benefits; Assured Career Progression; 14 years regular service; pay fixation; representation undecided; Annexure P-5; six weeks; welfare State; Litigation Policy of the State; mandamus; consequential benefits; arrears interest 2%; CWPOA 5536 of 2020 Sanjay Kumar versus State of HP; Suresh Kumar; Pawan Kumar Verma; State of H.P.; CWP 7814 7816 of 2025; Himachal Pradesh High Court Shimla; Jyotsna Rewal Dua; Rocky Advocate; L.N. Sharma Additional Advocate General.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations dated 14.02.2025 and 20.12.2024 in accordance with law within six weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ¶21

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representations seeking grant of ACP benefits on completion of 14 years of regular service with consequential benefits and arrears with 2% interest.

¶12

Court's answer

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 grievances.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Not taking a decision on an employee's representation for months together gives rise to unnecessary multiplication of litigation and avoidable increase to the Court docket; timely decision on such representations is the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State.

¶20

Key takeaways

Both writ petitions were disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations in accordance with law within six weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioners.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) disposed of CWP Nos. 7814 & 7816 of 2025 (Suresh Kumar and Pawan Kumar Verma v. State of H.P. & Ors.). The petitioners sought mandamus for grant of ACP benefits on completion of 14 years of regular service with consequential benefits per instructions dated 09.08.2012, 07.07.2014 and 09.09.2014, and modification of pay fixation in terms of CWPOA 5536 of 2020 (Sanjay Kumar versus State of HP), plus arrears with 2% interest; their grievance was non-decision of representations dated 14.02.2025 and 20.12.2024 (Annexure P-5). Holding that a welfare State must decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time rather than sit over it indefinitely — consistent with the object of the State's Litigation Policy, as delay breeds avoidable litigation — the Court directed the respondents/competent authority to 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 AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.7814 & 7816 of 2025 Decided on: 13^th May, 2025

¶3

_________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.7814 of 2025 Suresh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.7816 of 2025 Pawan Kumar Verma ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents ________________________________________________________________ Coram_ Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Rocky, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additonal Advocate General.

¶4

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶5

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

¶6

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

¶7

2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

almost common relief, which has been extracted from CWP

¶11

No. 7814 of 2025:-

¶12

“ i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other directions may kindly be issued, to the respondents to grant the benefits of ACP on completion of 14 years of regular service with all consequential benefits in terms of the instructions dated 09.08.2012, 07.07.2014 & 09.09.2014 and respondent department be directed to modify the pay fixation accordingly in view of judgment passed in CWPOA 5536 of 2020 Sanjay Kumar versus State of HP.

¶13

ii. That the arrear accrued on account of consequential benefits may kindly be ordered to be paid with interest @2% from the date of accrual till the date of realization in the interest of justice and fair play.”

¶14

3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue

¶15

involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their respective representations dated 14.02.2025 and 20.12.2024 (Annexure

¶16

P-5), have still not been decided by the

¶17

respondents/competent authority.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

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.

¶21

5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid 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.

¶22

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

¶23

to stand disposed of.

¶24

May 13, 2025 R.Atal

Pawan Kumar Verma v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Rooplal Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

Krishni Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Hp and Another