IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1478/2025 Decided on:06.03.2025 Khushi Ram …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate, proxy counsel Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. 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:- “1. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to consider the petitioner to be in the employment up to the age of 60 years instead of 58 yrs. II. Issue a writ of Certiorari for quashing the office order dated 30.12.2017(Annexure P-2) whereby the petitioner was retired at the age of 58 years. III. Issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to release all the consequential service benefits w.e.f. 30.12.2017, strictly as per the directions issued in judgment dated 28.05.2024 delivered in CWP 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 No.2274 of 2021 titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of HP & Ors. in the interest of justice." 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 21.10.2024 at Annexure P-4 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 March, 06 2025(rohit)