Direction to decide representation for back wages post-reinstatement within a stipulated three-month timeframe.

The petitioner, a Community Health Officer, was previously terminated from service.

This termination was subsequently set aside by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in WPS No. 1276 of 2024.

Following the reinstatement, the petitioner sought the release of salary, honorarium, and consequential benefits for the intervening period (04.01.2024 to 01.08.2024) during which he was kept out of service.

The petitioner submitted a formal representation (Annexure P-6) to Respondent No. 2 (Mission Director, National Health Mission) regarding these claims.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus after the representation remained pending, though at the time of the hearing, he limited his prayer to seeking a direction for the authority to decide the representation within a stipulated timeframe.

Whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction to direct Respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner’s pending representation regarding back wages and service benefits for the period of illegal termination.

The Court applied the principles of administrative law concerning the duty of public authorities to consider and decide representations made by employees in a time-bound manner.

It exercised its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure that administrative grievances are addressed without undue delay.

The Court further noted the principle of judicial economy where, upon the consent of the parties, a matter can be disposed of at the motion stage with directions to the competent authority.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s primary grievance stemmed from the non-payment of salary for a period where his termination had already been declared illegal in previous litigation (WPS No. 1276 of 2024).

During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel explicitly stated that they were not pressing the petition on its merits but were seeking only a time-bound disposal of the pending representation.

The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate and standing counsel for the National Health Mission, raised no objection to this limited prayer.

Consequently, the Court found it unnecessary to adjudicate the substantive rights of the petitioner at this stage, determining that the interests of justice would be served by directing the administrative authority to apply its mind to the facts and law relevant to the petitioner's claim.

The Court directed Respondent No. 2 to consider and take a decision on the petitioner’s pending representation (Annexure P-6) in accordance with the law.

The Court ordered that this decision be made expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.