MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances

23 November 2024 12:16 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Himachal Pradesh High Court directed the state government to address pending representations of employees seeking regularization and associated benefits. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua emphasized the necessity of timely decision-making by government authorities, stressing that indefinite delays force employees into litigation, thereby overburdening courts.

The petitioners, including Satish Kumar, Ranju Kumari, and others, sought regularization of their employment from the date of their initial appointment, along with consequential benefits, including interest on arrears. They argued that the legal principles governing their claims had already been established in earlier cases, but their representations remained undecided by the state authorities.

The petitioners invoked the doctrine of equality, citing precedents where similarly situated employees had received regularization and monetary benefits. They highlighted cases such as those of Jitender Kumar and Ashok Kumar, whose services were regularized in August 2024 under similar circumstances.

Justice Dua noted that the state’s inaction contradicted its obligation as a welfare government to address employee grievances promptly. She remarked, “A welfare state must not indefinitely delay decisions on employee representations, as doing so compels employees to resort to litigation for redressal of issues that should be administratively resolved.”

The Court linked this observation to the State Litigation Policy, which aims to minimize avoidable litigation. Justice Dua criticized the failure to adhere to the policy, stating, “Ignoring representations leads to unnecessary litigation, increasing the burden on courts with government-induced disputes.”

In disposing of the petitions, the Court directed the state government and relevant authorities to consider and resolve the employees’ pending representations within six weeks. The orders issued were to be communicated to the petitioners to ensure transparency and accountability.

Justice Dua underscored the importance of acting expeditiously in similar cases to uphold the principles of equity and justice while reducing the strain on judicial resources.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision highlights the judiciary’s expectation that government authorities take timely and responsible action in employment-related disputes. By enforcing strict timelines and emphasizing the importance of the State Litigation Policy, the judgment serves as a reminder that delays in administrative decision-making not only harm employees but also burden the judicial system.

Date of Decision: November 19, 2024.
 

Latest Legal News