IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1884 of 2025 Decided on: 19th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajesh Mehta …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Karam Pal, Advocate vice Mr. M.A. Safee, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i. That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other directions may kindly be issued, to the respondents to grant the benefits on completion of 14 years of service w.e.f. 05.06.2013 with all consequential benefits in terms of the notification dated 09.08.2012 & instructions dated 07.07.2014 & 09.09.2014 in view of the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Sanjay Kumar Supra. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 ii. That Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may be issued to direct the Respondents to also pay the consequential benefits on completion of 9 years of service alongwith interest @ 9% 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 05.11.2024 (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 redressal 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 the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid 3 representation of the petitioner dated 05.11.2024 (Annexure P-5) 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 March 19, 2025 Judge Mukesh