IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11017 of 2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 10th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.11017 of 2025 Inder Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.11018 of 2025 Rajneesh Thakur …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.11019 of 2025 Pushpa Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.11020 of 2025 Nirmla Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. CWP No.11021 of 2025 Chint Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 6. CWP No.11022 of 2025 Jai Nand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. CWP No.11023 of 2025 Kiran Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. CWP No.11024 of 2025 Narpat Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. CWP No.11025 of 2025 Aruna Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 3 Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. All these writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.11017 of 2025 read as under:- “i. That the respondents may kindly be directed to make an order of regularization in service of the petitioners against the apposite substantive post, along with all incidental there to benefits as given to similarly situated incumbents who have approached the Hon’ble Court earlier by way of CWP No.244/2019 titled as State of HP & ors VS Narender Kumar. ii. That the action of the respondents in denying the consideration and the resultant regularization to the petitioner as Mali or any other equivalent post despite being eligible; despite the availability of vacant posts of Mali and in discriminatory manner when similar daily wagers were regularized in the past in respondent department and in other departments may kindly be held illegal, discriminatory and unsustainable.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in these cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations, annexed with the writ petitions as Annexure P-5, 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 4 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 unproductive government induced litigation. 5. In view of above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 10, 2025 Judge Mukesh