2025:HHC:5791 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12551 of 2024 Date of Decision: 12.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mukul Jishtu …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Reeta Goswami, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Rekha Kumari and Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “1. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the petitioner as having been appointed as JOA (IT) on regular basis from the date of his initial appointment. The respondents are further directed to release all consequential benefits. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:5791 -2- 2. That the Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay all the emoluments as a regular employee in the Department concern along with 18% interest w.e.f. petitioner’s date of appointment with all consequential benefits including counting the period for the purpose of seniority etc.” 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 (Annexure P-3) 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 above, present petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the 2025:HHC:5791 -3- representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner, 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. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 12, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)