IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10997 of 2025 Decided on: 10.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General. Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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 reliefs:- “I. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the Impugned action of the Respondents, whereby the Regularization of the Petitioner has been delayed unnecessarily and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - has been regularized on 10-01-2022 instead of 30-09-2021 being patently illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional besides the same being in violation to the settled law of the land. II. That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to extend the benefit of Annexure P-4 to the petitioner by re- fixing the pay of the petitioner a Rs. 31200/- on completion of two years of regular service of petitioner alongwith all consequential benefits from due date in the interest of justice and fair play.” 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 21.02.2024 (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)