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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representations dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-2 colly) in accordance with law within six weeks, with the order so passed to be communicated to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. The claimed higher stage of pay of Rs. 40,100/-, consequential benefits, arrears and interest @ 9% per annum were not themselves adjudicated.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of higher stage of pay of Rs. 40,100/- from 12.01.2024 (date of completion of two years' regular service), consequential benefits, and arrears with interest @ 9% per annum, in terms of the judgment in CWP No. 1638/2024 (Mohit Sharma v. State of H.P.). +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Where the legal principle involved in the adjudication of a 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 to sit over it indefinitely, compelling the employee to approach the Court; this accords with the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State.

Key takeaways

Failure to take a decision on an employee's representation for months together gives rise to unnecessary multiplication of litigation and brings otherwise avoidable increase to the Court's docket through unproductive government-induced litigation.ratio¶20
The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations dated 22.04.2025 in accordance with law within six weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of. The Court does not itself adjudicate the claimed entitlement to higher stage of pay, arrears or interest.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (single Bench, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) disposed of CWP No.8498 of 2025 (Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. v. State of H.P. & Ors., decided 22.05.2025) without adjudicating the petitioners' claim for the benefit of higher stage of pay of Rs. 40,100/- w.e.f. 12.01.2024 (completion of two years' regular service), consequential benefits and arrears with interest @ 9% per annum, founded on the judgment in CWP No. 1638/2024 titled Mohit Sharma versus State of H.P. & others. Observing that where the governing legal principle stands already decided, the welfare State is expected to decide an aggrieved employee's pending representation within a reasonable time rather than compel recourse to the Court — consistent with the State's Litigation Policy — and that months-long inaction multiplies litigation and burdens the docket with unproductive government-induced litigation, the Court directed the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representations dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-2 colly) in accordance with law within six weeks and to communicate the order so passed; pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of. The cited Mohit Sharma precedent is only referred to, not applied, by this Court.