After Admitting Lease, Defendant Cannot Turn Around and Call It Forged—Contradictory Stand at Advanced Trial Stage Impermissible: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Amendment Plea Dismissed Employee Has No Right to Leave Encashment Under Statutory Rules: Punjab and Haryana High Court Section 13 of Gambling Act Is Cognizable — Magistrate Can Take Cognizance on Police Report: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Surveyor’s Report Not Sacrosanct, Arbitral Tribunal Has Jurisdiction to Apply Mind Independently: Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurer’s Challenge to Award in Fire Damage Dispute Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife Res Ipsa Loquitur Not a Substitute for Proof of Negligence: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Fatal Road Accident Case NSA Detention Doesn’t Bar Framing of Charges If Prima Facie Evidence Exists: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Charges in Ajnala Police Station Violence Case Continued Contractual Service Despite Sanctioned Posts Is Unfair Labour Practice: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of ECG Technicians After 15 Years Will Duly Proved Even If Witnesses Forget Details After Eight Years: Madras High Court Validates Bequest, Sets Aside Partition Decree Writ Petition Not Maintainable Where Commercial Appeal Remedy Exists: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Petition, Permits Conversion Under Commercial Courts Act Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Cogent, But Caste-Based Offences Demand Specific Intent: Supreme Court Draws Line Between Heinous Crimes and Caste Atrocities Court Must Step into Testator’s Shoes, Not Substitute His Intent: Supreme Court Upholds Will Excluding One Daughter Production of Arbitration Clause is Enough - Not Conduct Mini-Trials on Capacity or Consortium Structure: Supreme Court Title to Property Must Be Proven by Evidence, Not Just Claimed by Deed: Supreme Court Strikes Down Injunction Order Rejecting Police Investigation Is Not Interlocutory Where It Affects Complainant’s Right to Fair Probe in Murder Case: Madhya Pradesh High Court Restores Revision in 156(3) Application Rejection Conviction Cannot Rest On Contradictions, Hostility And Conjecture: Supreme Court Acquits Seven Accused In 2010 Village Murder Power to Lower NEET Percentile Lies Only With Centre - States Can’t Dilute NEET by Administrative Letters: Supreme Court Imposed 10 Crore Cost On Private Dental College Identification Without TIP, Electronic Records Without 65B Certificate – Conviction Set Aside: Patna High Court Nothing Inflicts A Deeper Wound On Our Constitutional Culture Than A State Official Running Berserk Regardless Of Human Rights: Jharkhand High Court Orders ₹1.5 Lakh Interim Compensation Identification Vitiated, Diamonds Not Produced, Last Seen Theory Unreliable: Bombay High Court Acquits Two in 2011 Diamond Courier Murder Dishonour Due to ‘Account Blocked’ Not Attributable to Drawer—No Offence Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act Cannot Be Rebutted By Mere Assertions: Delhi High Court Affirms Conviction In 32-Year-Old Cheque Bounce Case Accused Cannot Demand Documents During Investigation Merely to Assist in Answering Queries: Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of S.91 CrPC Plea in Bank Fraud Probe Once a Person is a Major, They Are Free to Choose Their Partner – Absence of Marriage No Ground To Deny Protection: Allahabad High Court Connivance Can’t Be Washed Away by Exoneration: P&H High Court Upholds Penalty on Forest Guard Despite Enquiry Clean Chit Disciplinary Authority Cannot Override Enquiry Officer’s Clean Chit Without Hearing the Employee: Madhya Pradesh High Court Remands Termination for Procedural Lapse Appointment Secured by Misstating Marks Is Void Ab Initio; Human Error No Excuse Where Advantage Gained: Allahabad High Court Appeal Maintainable Despite Modified MACT Award — Kerala High Court Clarifies Scope of Appellate Review in Motor Accident Claims Signature Alone Doesn’t Prove Debt: Kerala High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case, Rejects Blanket Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act

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