IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8414 of 2025 Decided on: 3rd June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shokeen 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. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “i) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to count the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 25.03.2002 till 24.03.2010 for the purpose of pension under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 to release the pension to the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.05.2022 till date with interest @ 12% per annum.” 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 01.03.2025 (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 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 dated 01.03.2025 (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law within a period of six 3 weeks from 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 June 03, 2025 Judge Mukesh