IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8922/2025 Decided on: 28.05.2025 Nitin Sharma & Anr. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ I. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-7 (Colly) i.e. office orders dated 06.02.2024 issued by the respondent No.2. II. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the Impugned action of the Respondents, whereby the Regularization of the Petitioners have been delayed unnecessarily and has been regularized on and w.e.f. 05-01-2022 instead from October/December 2020 being 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 3 patently illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional besides the same being in violation to the settled law of the land. III. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioners w.e.f. 17-10-2020 and 20-12-2020 i.e. from the date the Regularization Policy was liberalized or from the date prior to 03.01.2022, along with all consequential benefits, including the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022 keeping in view the fact that the Petitioners have completed two years of contract service in the month of October/December, 2020 i.e. prior to 30.09.2021 as per the Regularization policy dated the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022 after taking into account the services rendered by them on contract basis as having been appointed prior to 03.01.2022.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-9-colly) have 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 3 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 representations of the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 28th May, 2025(rohit)