IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4546/2025 Decided on: 28.03.2025 Gian Chand …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a. That the writ of mandamus be issued by directing the respondent authorities to confer the work charge the work charge status to the petitioner on completion of 8 years services with effect from 01-01-2005 instead of 16-08-2007 with all consequential benefits by treating the petitioner as regular work charge beldar w.e.f 1-1-2005 including pensionary and all other benefits, in terms of Judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in LPA/165/2021 in the interest of law and Justice. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 b. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant similar treatment as given one Angrej Singh & similar situated persons in terms of the decision of this Court in Surajmani's case Supra.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure P-7) has still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority. 4. Once the legal principle involved in the adjudication of present petition has already been decided, it is expected from the welfare State to consider and decide the representation of the aggrieved employee within a reasonable time and not to sit over the same indefinitely compelling the employee to come to the Court for redresssal of his grievances. This is also the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State. Not taking decision on the representation for months together would not only give rise to unnecessary multiplication of the litigation but would also bring in otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation. 5. In view of above, the instant petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also 3 communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 28th March, 2025(rohit)