IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5116 of 2025 Decided on: 7th April, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ramesh Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “i) That the impugned action of the respondent department may kindly be quashed and set aside and the benefits given to the similar situated person in compliance of the judgment passed in CWP 842/2017 titled as State of H.P. & others Vs. Sardari Lal & Another alongwith all connected matters may kindly be given to the present petitioner. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that the representation (Annexure P-3) preferred by him 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 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 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from 3 today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 07, 2025 Judge Mukesh