IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CWP No. 9760/2024
Decided on: 31.12.2024
Susheela Kumari …Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents.
……………………………………………………………………………….
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional
Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J
Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate
General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following
substantive reliefs:-
“a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the
nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction
quashing the impugned action of the Respondents whereby the
petitioner has been denied the counting of contractual service as
qualifying service for the purpose of
promotion/increment/seniority/pension and other consequential
benefits.
B. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the
nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to count the
contractual services for the purpose of qualifying service for next
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
promotional post and the same may also be counted for the grant
of annual increment/seniority and other consequential benefits i.e.,
qualifying service for the purpose of promotion and pensionary
benefits.”
3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in
the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the
petitioner is that her representation dated 28.04.2024 (Annexure P-4)
has still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority.
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
redresssal 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.
5. In view of above, the instant petition is disposed of by
directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the
aforesaid representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law
within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also
3
communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
31st December, 2024
(rohit)