IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8095 of 2025 Date of decision: 20.05.2025 Naresh Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional 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(s):- “1. That the break in service of the petitioner in each year from 1998 to December 2001 be condoned for the purpose of counting the seniority and other consequential benefits. 2. That the artificial break be condoned in order to grant the actual benefit of 8 years of service to the petitioner. 3. That the petitioner be considered for regularization with effect from 2006 by counting service from 1998. 4. That the petitioner be granted the seniority for the break period with effect from 1998 to December 2001. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- 5. That the case of the petitioner is securely covered with the judgment of Uggam Ram Case as Annexure P-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 his representation dated 19.01.2025 (Annexure P-3) 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 their 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 in accordance with law within a period of six weeks -3- 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 20th May, 2025 Judge (Shamsh Tabrez)