IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.6826 of 2025 Decided on: 28th April, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Anjana Kumari ....Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh K.Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents- Corporation to regularize the services of the husband of the petitioner, Late Shri Mintu Kumar from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 10.10.2006 by extending the benefits of the judgment dated 08.02.2019 rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1557- 1564 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16158- 16165/2016) titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation Versus Lekh Ram Etc. Etc., with all consequential benefits. (ii) That the respondents may further be directed to pay arrears to the petitioner w.e.f; 10.10.2006 flowing out of regularization of her late husband, Shri Mintu Kumar alongwith interest 9% per annum till the actual date of payment, by issuing writ of mandamus.” 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 Annexure P-5, 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 April 28, 2025 R.Atal