IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9026/2025 Decided on: 30.05.2025 Sanjay Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chaudhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ i) That the notification dated 19.12.2018 vide which petitioner was given fresh appointment may kindly be quashed and further respondent may kindly be directed to modify the notification dated 19.12.2018 to the extent that petitioner was not a fresh appointee as on 19.12.2018 and consider the appointment of the petitioner from 08.06.2016 on which date the college was taken over by the respondents in view of the mandate given by Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 14.09.2023, passed in CWPOA 2050 of 2020, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 titled as Naveen Nischal Sood & Others Versus State of H.P. & Others in the interest of justice. ii) That the respondents may be directed to release the full salary for the period 08.06.2016 to 19.12.2018 at par with Asst. Professor appointed in the respondent department, from the date of taking over the privately managed Jawalaji Degree College, Jwalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P i.e. 08.06.2016. iii.) That the respondents further may be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner as Asst. Professor on basis of the date of taking over of the College i.e. 08.06.2016 as per the policy of the government after three year of contract service, w.e.f. 08.06.2019 instead of 10.02.2022, with all consequential benefits, in the interest of law, justice and fair play.” 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 26.02.2025 (Annexure P-8) 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 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 unnecessary multiplication of the litigation but would also bring in 3 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 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, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 30th May, 2025(rohit)