IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9750 of 2024 Decided on: 1st January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neha Gupta …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Purohit, Mr. Digvijay Singh Thakur and Mr. Saurabh Ahluwalia, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i. That the present Civil Writ Petition may very kindly be allowed and the respondents may be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner as Staff Nurse from the date petitioner was initially appointed on the said post on contractual basis in the month of July 2007, along with all the consequential and financial benefits. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 ii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to further provide the benefit of the seniority from the date the petitioner was appointed as Staff Nurse alongwith all the consequential and financial benefits to the petitioner. iii. That the respondent may kindly be directed to consider the case/representation (Annexure P-X) of the petitioner in terms of the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in a time bound manner.” 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 01.08.2024 (Annexure P-X) 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 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 the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 01.08.2024 (Annexure P-X) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 01, 2025 Judge Mukesh