IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4956 of 2025 Decided on: 9th April, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Om Prakash ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - “i) That the respondent may kindly be directed to count his army service towards pay fixation in terms of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble court in CWP no. 6443/2021 titled as Babu ram and others vs state of H.P ii. That the respondents may be directed to release the arrears of pay, along-with interest at the rate of 9% forthwith;.” 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 25.04.2024 (Annexure P-2), 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 redressal 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 - 3 - unproductive government induced litigation. 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 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 communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge April 9, 2025 R.Atal