IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.11062 of 2025 Decided on: 10.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Dev Dass ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocates. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. 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 relief:- “(I) That appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued, directing the respondent to regularized the service of the petitioner from his initial appointment as per the Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act,1995 and as per the judgment dated 22.08.2022 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP(OA) No. 1077 /2019 titled Nitin Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & An and Civil writ petition. 394/2024 decided on 17.06.2024, titled as Roop Lal Vs H.P. Board of school education. II. The appointment on contract basis order dated 08.08.2012 and regularization after 4 years 9 months dated 24.05.2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside and petitioner may kindly be directed to regularize the service of petitioner from his initial appointment i.e.08.08.2012.” 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 12.04.2025 (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 - 3 - 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 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 July 10, 2025 (R.Atal)