IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.12166 of 2024
Decided on: 29th October, 2024
_________________________________________________________________
Nirmla Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate
General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional
Advocate General, 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
retire the petitioner only after having completed
the age of 60 years with all consequential
benefits, like arrear of pay, increments, seniority
etc., as is being done in case of other Class-IV
employees of the State, who are similarly
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
- 2 -
situated to the petitioner.
(ii) That the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed
to decide the representation dated 17.06.2024,
Annexure P-3, within time bound manner.”
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
17.06.2024 (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 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
otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on
unproductive government induced litigation.
5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed
- 3 -
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