Disposed¶28

Akhilesh Kumar and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC20 May 2025CWP/8193/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HP High Court, CWP No.8193 of 2025, decided 20 May 2025 (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J): writ petition disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to decide petitioners' pending representation (Annexure P-5) seeking higher-pay benefits under Notifications dated 03.01.2022 & 06.09.2022 within six weeks; welfare State must decide employee representations within a reasonable time.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representation (Annexure P-5) 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. ¶28

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority ought to be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representation (Annexure P-5) seeking extension of the benefits of Notifications dated 03.01.2022 & 06.09.2022 (higher stage of pay in the concerned level of Pay Matrix).

¶25

Court's answer

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, compelling the employee to approach the Court for redressal.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Not taking a decision on a representation for months together gives rise to unnecessary multiplication of litigation and otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government-induced litigation.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (CWP No.8193 of 2025, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J., 20.05.2025): Petitioners sought mandamus to extend the benefits of Notifications dated 03.01.2022 & 06.09.2022 and grant of higher stage of pay in the concerned level of Pay Matrix (Rs.37600), asserting the legal issue stood already adjudicated; their representation (Annexure P-5) remained undecided. Held that 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, as prolonged inaction multiplies litigation and burdens the Court docket. Writ petitions 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 petitioners.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.8193 of 2025

¶3

Decided on: 20^th May, 2025

¶4

Sh. Akhilesh Kumar & Ors. …..Petitioners

¶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. Onkar Jairath, Advocate.

¶12

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶13

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶14

Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional

¶15

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

¶16

This writ petition has been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs read as

¶17

under:-

¶18

“i. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefits of the Notifications dated 03.01.2022 & 06.09.2022 and Grant Higher Stage of Pay in the Concerned Level of Pay Matrix i.e. Rs.37600as per

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

Notification dated 06.09.2022 and fix his pay from due date i.e. after completion two years of regular service with all consequential benefits including the arrears alsong with interest @ 9%.

¶22

ii. That the cost of the Writ Petition may be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.”

¶23

According to the petitioners, the legal issue

¶24

involved in this case has already been adjudicated upon.

¶25

The grievance of the petitioners are that their representation (Annexure P-5), annexed with the writ petition, has still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority.

¶26

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.

¶27

¶28

In view of the above, these writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation (Annexure P-5) 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.

¶29

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

¶30

Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 20, 2025 Judge Shamsh Tabrez

Akhilesh Kumar and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Kumar and Others 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

Vijay Laxmi Vs Rakesh Kanwar

Yagya Dutt Vs the Hrtc and Others

Champa Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Surjit Singh Vs the Hrtc and Another

Indira Devi Vs Director of Higher Education and Others

Rakesh Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others