IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11262/2025 Decided on: 14.07.2025 Chanchla Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Subhash Chander, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and 4, respectively. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “(i) That in the above premises, this Hon'ble Court humbly requested to issue the appropriate Writ, Orders or Directions for respondent No.02 to decide the representation dated 24.02.2025 i.e. ANNEXURE P-5 keeping in view judgment passed by this 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Hon'ble Court in Baldev Versus State of H.P and others, in the interest of justice. (ii) That the respondent No. 04 may very kindly be directed to issue the directions to the respondents to issue the pension and per judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex court in Balo Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in the interest of Justice.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 24.02.2025 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. 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 3 communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 14th July, 2025(rohit)