Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 827 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Raju Ram

2017-07-24

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Impugned orders, passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, in OA No.995/2016, titled as Raju Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh & another, dated 1.4.2016; and in Rev. Pet. No.12 of 2016, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & another v. Raju Ram, dated 21.12.2016, assailed by the State do not adjudicate the rights inter se the parties. The only direction being, consideration of original applicant’s case, in accordance with law and more specifically, in terms of directions issued in the case of a similarly situated person. 2. The direction is only for consideration of the case of the original applicant, without returning finding as to whether the original applicant is actually similarly placed with that of the petitioner in CWP No.811 of 2011, titled as Ashwani Kumar v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & others, in whose case, directions earlier came to be passed by this Court. What surprises us is the fact that the State sought review of such orders, which action also did not find favour with the Tribunal. 3. Yet the State has filed the present petition, assailing these orders. 4. State of Himachal Pradesh has formulated a Litigation Policy, which it is duty bound to follow. 5. The said Litigation Policy came to be introduced, acknowledging that:- (a) litigation is generally believed to be an unproductive investment both in time and money; (b) Government has to conserve the resources, determine priorities of expenditure by a judicious approach so that unproductive litigation does not eat away a large chunk of the scarce resources; (c) The officer who initiates litigation is so much involved into it that his work as an employee suffers; (d) litigation contributes to the docket explosion; and (e) avoidable litigation pursued relentlessly, discloses managerial failure. 6. The object of the Litigation Policy reads as under: “The Policy outlines the broad guidelines on litigation strategies to be followed by the State Government or its agencies with a view to reduce litigation, saving avoidable costs on unproductive litigation, reducing avoidable load on judiciary with respect to government induced litigation and thus realising the promise of Article 39A of the Constitution, which obligates the State to promote equal justice and provide free legal aid.” 7. By virtue of clause 1.4 (d to h), the State is under an obligation to avoid litigation, wherever possible and not to file appeal unless the State or its agency believes that it has reasonable prospects for success or the appeal is otherwise justified in public interest, which in the instant case, we have found none. 8. In fact clause (2) of the Litigation Policy mandates formulation of Committees for monitoring the litigation. A High Powered Committee, at the highest level, is under an obligation to monitor the implementation of the Policy and hold the delinquent accountable and responsible. 9. Clause (4) lays down the practices to be adopted for achieving the object of the Policy, in the following terms: “(iii) Litigation between government departments/agencies is to be avoided at all costs. For amicable settlement of disputes between departments, a suitable mechanism for resolution will be established under the Chairpersonship of the Chief Secretary who will settle these inter departmental issues/disputes after hearing the concerned departments/agencies. (iv) Employees Grievance Redressal Mechanism with respect to grievances of the employees will be set up in every department which ensures that employees do not have to resort to litigation, as far as possible. The decisions of this mechanism shall be binding upon the government in so far as individual grievances, not having a larger implication for other employees of the department/other departments, are concerned.” 10. It is in this backdrop, we find that the instant petition came to be filed, without due and proper application of mind and dehors the State Litigation Policy. 11. Under these circumstances, we direct the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to convene a meeting of the Principal Secretaries of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, in apprising them of the existence, importance, significance, advantages and benefits of adhering to the Litigation Policy, in letter and spirit. In turn, it is expected of the Principal Secretaries to convene a meeting in their respective Departments, sensitizing the stakeholders with regard thereto. This would only help curtail the problem of docket explosion and prevent cause any unnecessary inconvenience and expenditure by innocent persons. 12. We further direct the Chief Secretary as also the Principal Secretaries to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to have all the cases reviewed, periodically, in terms of the H.P. State Litigation Policy. This alone would generate lot of good will to the State. 12. We further direct the Chief Secretary as also the Principal Secretaries to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to have all the cases reviewed, periodically, in terms of the H.P. State Litigation Policy. This alone would generate lot of good will to the State. With these directions, present petition is disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.