IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3384 of 2025 Decided on: 30th April, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ghanshyam …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Bhawna Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy 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 office order dated 22nd August 2022 Annexure P-1 passed by the respondents may very kindly be quashed and set aside. The respondents shall be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regular appointment from initial date of appointment i.e. 22.08.2022 as Drawing Master along-with all consequential benefits. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 (ii) That the respondents may further be directed to grant all consequential benefits of regularization in favour of the petitioner.” 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 20.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) 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. 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 20.08.2024 3 (Annexure P-2) 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 April 30, 2025 Judge Mukesh