IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15840/2024 Decided on: 09.01.2025 Surender Singh …Petitioner Versus HRTC. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Ashima Premy, Advocate vice Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Ms. Ashima Premy, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ (a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ or order direction be issued, directing the respondent corporation to regularize the service of the petitioner immediately after the completion of three years of contractual service w..f. 01.06.2018 with all consequential benefits. (b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondent corporation tore-fix the pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.06.2018 and release the entire arrears in favour of petitioner within time bound manner.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner is that his representation dated 25.08.2024 (Annexure P-8) 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 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 communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 09th January 2025(rohit)