IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9480/2025 Decided on: 06.06.2025 Sant Ram …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Bhawna, Advocate vice Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and 5. 2. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “(i) That the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for work-charge Status/regularisation after 8 years of daily waged services i.e. 31.12.2003 with all consequential benefits. ii) That in alternative the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization/work-charge Status after 8 years of daily waged services i.e. 1.1.2002 in view of the judgment rendered in CWP No. 2735/2010 titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs State of H.P. & Other.” 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 12.04.2024 (Annexure P-4) 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 otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation. 3 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 6th June, 2025(rohit)