IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CWP No. 16580/2024 alongwith connected matters
Decided on: 31.12.2024
1 CWP No. 16580/2024
Arun Dev & Ors. …Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.
2 CWP No. 16592/2024
Reena Verma & Ors. …Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.
3. CWP No. 16620/2024
Kheema Ram & Ors. …Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.
……………………………………………………………………………….
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondent(s): Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Additional
Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J
Notice. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned Additional
Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
2
2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of
following substantive reliefs:-
“ That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the third
financial enhancement/upgradation under the New ACP of 2012,
to the petitioner, on the completion of 14 years of service as JBT
teacher w.e.f. due date with all consequential benefits and the
arrears accrued thereunder may kindly be ordered to be paid with
interest.”
3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in
the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the
petitioners is that their representations, annexed with the respective
petitions, have 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.
3
5. In view of above, the instant petitions are disposed of
by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide
the aforesaid representations 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. Pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
31st December, 2024
(rohit)