IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15662/2024 Decided on:09.01.2025 Umesh Kumar …Petitioner Versus HRTC & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to convert the petitioner on contract basis keeping in view item No. 128.04, as approved by the Board of Directors of HRTC (Annexure-P-4). (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to convert the petitioner on contract basis immediate after completion of Six year service i.e. and w.e.f April 2009 and thereafter petitioner may be regularized as per the policy, with all consequential benefits including interest @ 12% per annum from the due date and till date of its realization. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (iii) That the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to take the decision on the representations (Annexure P-15) of the petitioner within 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 his representations at Annexure P-15 (colly) have 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 09th January 2025(rohit)