IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9058 of 2025 Decided on: 30th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prashant Bhandari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur and Mr. Deepanshu Bindal, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Sikander Bhushan, 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) That in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the Condition No.2 of regularization with immediate effect vide notification dated 5.8.2020 may kindly be quashed and the respondents may kindly be directed to implement their own letter dated 11.5.2018 and regularize the services of the present petitioner 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 w.e.f. 1.4.2018 along with all consequential benefits by issuing writ of mandamus, in the interest of justice and fair play. ii) To decide the representation dated 20th June 2024 in light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No.342/2021.” 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 20.06.2024 (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 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 20.06.2024 (Annexure P-4) 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 30, 2025 Judge Mukesh