IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9240 of 2025 Decided on: 3rd June, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Urmila Kumari ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Ms. Sheetal Kaul, Advocate. 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:- “ a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant the revised leave encashment in compliance to the office order dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) & 26.09.2024 (Annexure P-5) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum till 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - its realization from the due date, in the interest of law and justice. b) That a writ in nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure P-6) after taking into consideration the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Amita Gupta's case and office memorandum dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure P-1), during the pendency of the writ petition, in the interest of law and justice. ” 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 representations dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P-4) and 13.03.2025 (Annexure P-6) 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 - 3 - 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 petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations 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 June 3, 2025 R.Atal