IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9122 of 2025 Decided on 5th June , 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Kanta Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, 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 grant the benefit of retirement at the age of 60 years in favour of the petitioner in terms of the judgment rendered by This Hon'ble Court in case 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - of Baldev Vs. State of H.P. and others, C.W.P. No. - 2711/2017 on 22.02.2022 by granting notional fixation of pay and as a qualifying service for the purpose of pension. ii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to hold the petitioner entitled to receive pension as per CCS Pension Rules in the interest of justice..” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 10.05.2025 (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 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. - 3 - 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 June 5, 2025 R.Atal