Santosh Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Ors

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

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

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

“i. That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent department to grant all service benefits to the petitioner being regular employee w.e.f. the initial date of his joining in the department as contractual appointees and also to count the said period for his seniority for sake of retiral benefits and pensionary benefits in view of the judgment dated 03.08.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 2004/2017, titled as Taj Mohammad and others vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others (Annexure P-3).

ii. That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension as well as other retiral benefits from the due date in view of the fact that the length of service for grant of pension is required 10 years, but the petitioner has completed more than 13 years regular service.”

According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representations dated 13.06.2024 & 19.09.2024 (Annexure P-5 & P-6, respectively) have still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority.

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 their 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.

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of eight 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.