IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8306/2025 Decided on: 21.05.2025 Sachin Guleria …Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent-Corporation to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment ie: 11.03.2014. strictly in accordance with the judgment dated 08.02.2019 rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1557-1564 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16158- 16165/2016) titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation Versus Lekh Ram Etc. Etc., alongwith all consequential service benefits including seniority and arrears etc. and justice be done. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (ii) That the respondents may further be directed to pay arrears alongwith interest @ 9% per annum flowing out of regularization of the petitioner as Conductor w.e.f; 11.03.2014 onwards, by issuing writ of mandamus. (iii) To grant to the petitioner such other consequential reliefs which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in facts and circumstances of the matter.” 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 17.01.2025 (Annexure P-4) 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 21st May, 2025(rohit)