Vidya Temta vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

L. Narayana Swamy, CJ

Petitioner, by way of the instant writ petition, is claiming parity on the ground that her junior (respondent No. 5) is getting more salary than the petitioner.

It is submitted that the petitioner had filed representations (Annexure P­6) to the respondents, but the same have not been decided so far.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the representations (Annexure P­6), which are un­dated.

It is pertinent to observe herein that when a person approaches this Court, in order to explain the cause of action, he/she should state as to whether he/she had approached the respondents and whether the respondents have considered the same or not. Without providing an opportunity to the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in respect of the prayer made, no cause of action can be said to have been accrued in favour of the petitioner, in case he/she approaches this Court directly, without filing any representation before the respondents. In case, the representation filed by the petitioner is rejected, then the petitioner would get the cause of action to approach this Court.

Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has to approach the respondents, at the first instance, by way of filing the representation and in case the representation is filed, it is for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file representation before the respondents, who are directed to consider the same, in accordance with law, and make a decision thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.

Copy dasti.