IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9088/2025 a/w connected matters Decided on: 02.06.2025 1. CWP No.9088/2025 Surinder Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 9090/2025 Bhup Lal & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 3. CWP No. 9094/2025 Hari Om & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 4. CWP No. 9096/2025 Prakash Chand & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 5. CWP No. 9092/2025 Sohan Singh & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. 2 Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey and Ms. Samriti, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 9088/2025:- “ ) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, ⅰ directing the respondents to grant the work charge status/regularization to petitioner immediately on completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year, with effect from due date, with all consequential benefits including pay fixation, pay arrears, increments, seniority and other benefits etc. (ii) That the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to decide the representations dated 05.07.2024 and 07.01.2025, Annexures P-2 and P-3, within time bound manner.” 3. According to the petitioner(s), the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner(s) is that their representations, annexed with the respective 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 3 petitions, 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 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 petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner(s), in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 2nd June, 2025(rohit)