IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8780 of 2025 Decided on: 27th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reshma Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagmohan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy 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 reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to grant regularization benefit w.e.f. 01.04.2018 for the services rendered by late husband of petitioner namely Sh. Hira Lal in terms of the Judgment dated 31.08.2022 passed in Yashwant Singh & ors case with all consequential benefits of services rendered by the late husband of the petitioner including death gratuity, family pension as per applicable rules. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to pay the arrears in lieu of the grant of basic pay in relevant Pay Band, Grade Pay and Dearness allowance along-with all consequential benefits.” 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 11.12.2024 (Annexure P-7) 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. 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid 3 representation of the petitioner dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure P-7) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks 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 May 27, 2025 Judge Mukesh