IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8119 of 2025 Decided on: 20th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Sarwan Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Ms. Suchitra Sen, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, 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 to treat the appointment of petitioner on regular basis from the date of his initial appointment i.e; 10.06.2005 in light of the judgment dated 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 22.08.2022 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CWPOA No. 1077 of 2019 tilted as Nitin Kumar vs. State of HP and others and also keeping in view the interim order dated 10.08.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWPOA No. 5267 of 2020 titled as Suraj Sharma vs. State of HP and others, whereby appointment of Shri Suraj Sharma has been treated on regular basis from the date of his initial appointment i.e; 29.09.2017 with all consequential benefits vide office order dated 31.08.2023 Annexure P-8) passed by the competent authority and accordingly, release all consequential benefits to the present writ petitioner alongwith interest @, 9% per annum accrued on the arrear amount so worked out by the respondents and justice be done.” 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 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-10), 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 - 3 - 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 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 May 20, 2025 R.Atal