CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Chandravati vs State Of H.P. And Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 1 January 2025 · Citation: (2025) 01 SHI CK 1666

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J · Rakesh Kainthla, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226, 329 · Securitisation and Reconstruction Assets of Financial and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Section 2(1)(m)(iv), 13, 13(2), 13(4), 14, 17 · Companies Act, 1956 — Section 4A · Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 — Section 2(h)(ii) · Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - Section45(I)(f)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
CWP No.16742 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 360 words

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

1.

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

2.

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

“I. That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner for retirement on attaining the age of 60 years instead of 58 years with further direction to the respondents to grant two years consequential benefits in pursuance to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No.2274 of 2021 titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others.

II. That the petitioner may kindly be granted the salary from 30.04.2021 till her superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years.

III. That the representation dated 03.11.2024 filed by the petitioner may be decided within stipulated period.”

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 03.11.2024 (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 of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 03.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) 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.