IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6476/2025 Decided on: 21.05.2025 Jiya Lal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Hitender Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and 5, respectively 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ (i) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to pay the pension to the petitioner from the due date i.e. from the date of his superannuation keeping in view the judgment passed in 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Civil Appeal No. 6309/2017 titled as Sunder Singh Versus The State of H.P. (Annexure P-3). (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the pension to the petitioner with interest @12% per annum.” 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 29.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) 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 3 communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 21st May, 2025(rohit)