IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14568 of 2024 Decided on: 6th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roshan Lal …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned Standing Counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent-Corporation to count the benefit of addition of 5 years qualifying service as contained in Rule 29 and 48-B of Central Civil Services(Pension) Rules, 1972 in the actual services rendered by the petitioner i.e. 23 years, and release the arrears along with revision of pension and other ancillary benefits along with interest @ 12% per annum 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 w.e.f. 01.08.2007 till actual realization of the entire amount in view of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court on dated 02.07.2015 in CWP No.1459 of 2015, titled, Brij Lal Thakur versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3670-3671 of 2017, titled Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another versus Brij Lal Thakur decided on 11.11.2021.” 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 01.08.2024 (Annexure P-7) 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 respondent-Corporation 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, as is applicable to the respondent-Corporation. 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 01.08.2024 (Annexure P-7) 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 06, 2025 Judge Mukesh