IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9374 of 2025 Decided on 5th June , 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Sat Pal ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocates. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy 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 reliefs:- “a. Writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to count the service rendered by petitioner as Pump Operator (Class- III) on daily wager basis toward pension and thereafter petitioner may be granted pension and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - allied pensionery benefits from due date along with interest on delayed payment. b. That respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner strictly in accordance with judgments annexed as Annexure P-4 and P-5 and representation of petitioner may be decided and considered accordingly and pension from due date along with interest may be released to petitioner.” 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 03.04.2025 (Annexure P-6), 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 5, 2025 R.Atal