Disposed¶23

Arti v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC16 May 2025CWP/7996/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

undecided representation; welfare State; reasonable time; six weeks; H.P. Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2022; Rule 7A; Notification dated 06.09.2022; contract service prior to 03.01.2022; higher stage of pay Rs. 31,200; two years regular service; arrears; interest 9% p.a.; Mohit Sharma; Litigation Policy of the State; mandamus; Jyotsna Rewal Dua; Shimla; CWP No.7994 of 2025; CWP No.7996 of 2025

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law within six weeks, and communication of the order so passed to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶23

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who rendered contract service prior to 03.01.2022, are entitled to the benefit of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 read with Rule 7A (incorporated vide Notification dated 06.09.2022) — grant of the higher stage of pay of Rs. 31,200/- from the date of completion of two years of regular service as held in Mohit Sharma case — together with release of arrears of pay and interest @ 9% p.a. +1 more

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Once the legal principle involved in the adjudication 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 to sit over it indefinitely, thereby compelling the employee to approach the Court.

¶19

Key takeaways

The writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law within six weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioners.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.), 16.05.2025 — CWP Nos. 7994 & 7996 of 2025 (Shashi Paul and Arti v. State of H.P. and others). Petitioners, who rendered contract service prior to 03.01.2022, claimed the benefit of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 read with Rule 7A (incorporated vide Notification dated 06.09.2022): higher stage of pay of Rs. 31,200/- from completion of two years' regular service as held in Mohit Sharma case, with arrears and 9% interest. Their representations dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure P-6) lay undecided. Held: once the governing legal principle stands already decided, the welfare State must consider and decide the aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely; months-long silence breeds avoidable, government-induced litigation and docket burden, contrary to the Litigation Policy of the State. Petitions disposed of directing respondents/competent authority to decide the representations in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.7994 of 2025 alongwith CWP No.7996 of 2025

¶3

Decided on: 16^th May, 2025

¶4

1. CWP No.7994 of 2025 Shashi Paul …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. CWP No.7996 of 2025 Arti …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents

¶6

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

¶7

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the Petitioners: Mr. M.A. Safee, Mr. Pranav Kaushal and Mr. Sameer Miyan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

2. Both these writ petitions have been filed for the

¶15

grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.7994 of 2025 read as under:-

¶16

“i) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to extend the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022 after taking into account the services rendered by them on contract basis as having been appointed prior to 03.01.2022, in terms of Rule 7A, as incorporated vide Notification dated 06.09.2022, and he be granted the Higher Stage of Pay i.e. 31200/- from the date he has completed two years of regular service, as has been held by the Hon’ble High Court in Mohit Sharma Case (Supra).

¶17

ii) That the respondents be also directed to release the arrears of pay after fixing his pay @ Rs.31200/- w.e.f. the date he had completed two years of regular service along with interest @ 9% p.a.”

¶18

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 each dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure P-6), have still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

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, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners.

¶23

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

¶24

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶25

May 16, 2025 Mukesh

Arti v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arti 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ran Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Pritam Chand Vs State of Hp

Bati Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Amarsh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Yaqub Mohamad Vs the Hrtc and Another

Narain Dass Naik Vs State of Hp and Anr.