IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7930/2025 Decided on: 15.05.2025 Kanwar Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “ (a) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents by way of issuance of Writ of Mandamus to consider the petitioner as a regular employee to the post of Laboratory Attendant as and when his service was entered under the category of disabled quota w.e.f. 30-11-2004 for all intents and granting him regularization form the date of his entering service under disabled category i.e. 30-11-2004. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 b) This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent State to pay to the petitioner all the emoluments as he is entitled at par with regular employee in the establishment of respondent department w.e.f. 30-11-2004 with all consequential benefits including counting the period for the purpose of seniority etc.” 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 10.04.2025 (Annexure P-9) 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 redresssal 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 above, the instant petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law 3 within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 15th May, 2025(rohit)