IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.11762 of 2024
Decided on: 29th October, 2024
_________________________________________________________________
Subhash Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
HPTDC & Ors. …Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Shivank Singh Panta, Additional
Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Shivank Singh Panta, learned
Standing Cousnel, appears and waives service of notice on
behalf of the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of
following substantive reliefs: -
“(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to
pay the arrears of revision of pay scale w.e.f.
01.01.2016 to 30.04.2018 with interest @9% per
annum from the due date till the date of its
realization.
(ii) That the directions may kindly be issued to the
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
- 2 -
respondent Corporation to revise the gratuity
(DCRG) and leave encashment as per Annexure
P-1 and to pay the same alongwith interest @ 9%
per annum to the Petitioner w.e.f. due date i.e.
01.05.2018 till the date of its realization.
(iii) The respondents may also be directed to pay
ADA and balance amount of 50% IR with interest
@ 9% per annum from the due date and till the
date of its realization.”
3. 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
20.08.2024 (Annexure P-8) 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 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
- 3 -
otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on
unproductive government induced litigation.
5. 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 six weeks
from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the
petitioner.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
October 29, 2024
R.Atal