IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7096 of 2025 Decided on: 1st May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Neelam Kumari ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, learned Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive relief:- “a) Appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 01.10.2021 in terms of the policy decision dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure P-3) and in the alternative the petitioner be held entitled for 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - regularization from the date the clerks and forest guards governed by the same set of rules/policy have been regularized on 30/31.12.2021 with all consequential benefits. b. Appropriate writ direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner appointed for the purpose of higher pay stage fixation in terms of notification dated 06.09.2022 and to fix the pay of the petitioner at higher pay stage from the date of completion of 2 years regular services with the further direction to release the arrears of salary along with interest @ 9% per annum on delayed payment.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure P-6), 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 - 3 - 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 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 May 1, 2025 R.Atal