IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9248 of 2025 Decided on: 3rd June , 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Kamla Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, 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 relief:- “I. That the orders of retirement order may kindly be quashed and retirement of the petitioner at the age of 58 years may be held to be illegal and directions in the nature of writ may kindly be 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - passed to consider the petitioner in services from the date of her retirement till the age of 60 years along with all the consequential benefits and pensionary and retiral benefits including the payment of consequential arrears of pension from the date of her retirement, with all benefits incidental thereof along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.” 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 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 - 3 - 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 June 3, 2025 R.Atal