1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4874 of 2025 Date of decision: 19.05.2025 Dalip Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP-5970 of 2025 Application for condonation of delay in re-filing is allowed and to stand disposed of. CWP-4874 of 2025 Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “a. That writ in nature of the certiorari may be issued and office memorandum dated 6.7.2020 may kindly quashed and set aside (annexure P-4 ) -2- b. That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent to grant benefit of earned leave to the petitioner from the date of regularization i.e.1.1.2007 in view of judgment passed in CWP 5043 of 2022 titled as Sunita Sangroli Versus State of H.P. with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play.” 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 01.10.2024 (Annexure P-6) 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 their 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. -3- 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 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. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 19th May, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)