Disposed¶18

Attar Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Jan 2025CWP/9842/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HP High Court, CWP No.9842 of 2024, decided 02.01.2025 (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J): contract-basis Drawing Master's petition disposed of with direction to competent authority to decide his 13.07.2024 representation in accordance with law within eight weeks; welfare State must decide employees' representations within reasonable time per Litigation Policy; regularisation claim itself left to the authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 13.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law within eight weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶18

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents may be directed to grant regular appointment to the petitioner in the cadre of 'Drawing Master' from the date of initial appointment (31.01.2015, contract basis) and count his contract service for seniority, pension, annual increment, earned leave, carrier progression scheme and other consequential benefits, with interest @ 9% per annum. +2 more

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Once the legal principle involved 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 sit over it indefinitely; this accords with the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State, and prolonged non-decision multiplies litigation and burdens the court docket.

¶15

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 13.07.2024 in accordance with law within eight weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioner.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP No.9842 of 2024, decided 02.01.2025) by Attar Singh, a Drawing Master appointed on contract basis on 31.01.2015, seeking regular appointment, counting of contract service for seniority, pension, annual increment, earned leave and carrier progression scheme, and a time-bound decision on his representation dated 13.07.2024 in terms of CWP No. 2004/2017 (Taj Mohd. Vs State of H.P. & Ors.). The Court observed that where the legal principle involved has already been decided, the welfare State is expected to consider and decide an aggrieved employee's representation within a reasonable time and not sit over it indefinitely, consistent with the State's Litigation Policy. Disposing of the petition, the Court directed the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law within eight weeks and to communicate the order to the petitioner. The Court did not itself adjudicate the regularisation claim.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.9842 of 2024 Date of decision: 02.01.2025

¶3

Attar Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram:

¶4

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge . Whether approved for reporting?

¶5

For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kaul and Ms. Sheetal Kaula, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Dalip K. Sharma and Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General, for respondents-State.

¶6

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶7

Notice. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶8

2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-

¶9

“a). That the respondents may be directed to give regular appointment to the petitioner as members of service in the cadre of 'Drawing Master' from the date of initial appointment i.e. 31.01.2015(Annexure P-1) (contract basis) and count the service of petitioner rendered on 'contract basis' for the purpose of seniority, pension, annual increment, earned leave, carrier progression scheme along with all other consequential benefits, from

¶10

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

¶11

-2-

¶12

the date of initial appointments along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f., the date when the same fell due till its actual realization, in the interest of law and justice.

¶13

b) That during the pendency of the present writ petition the respondents may kindly be directed to consider and decide the representation dated 13.07.2024 (Annexure P- 3) in a time bound manner, in terms of judgment passed in CWP No. 2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohd. Vs State of H.P. & Ors., decided 03.08.2023(Annexure P-2), in the interest of law and justice.”

¶14

According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 13.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) has still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority.

¶15

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 their 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

¶16

-3-

¶17

also bring in otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation.

¶18

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner.

¶19

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

¶20

2^nd January, 2025 (Pardeep)

¶21

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Attar Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Attar Singh 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

Kali Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Romila Devi and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Kuldeep Guleria Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vikram Katoch Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rajender Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Anil Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Another