Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.7006 & 7018 of 2025 Date of decision: 30.04.2025 1. CWP No.7006 of 2025 Ram Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.7018 of 2025 Bodh Raj. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.7006 of 2025 read as under:- -2- “A. That a writ of certiorari may kindly be issued against the respondent department and the department be directed to modify the regularization order dated 22.8.2020 to the extent of granting regularization benefits on notional basis and a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued and respondent department may kindly be directed to granted actual benefits of regularization with all consequential benefits with effect from 2.6.2015 and arrear accrued thereon be paid with interest at rate of 9 % till the date of realization in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their respective representations have 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. -3- 5. In view of above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective representations of the petitioners, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 30th April, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)