IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3080 of 2025 Date of decision: 08.04.2025 Ramesh Chand. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Abhinav Purohit, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. : Mr. Vijay K. Arora, Senior Advocate with Ms. Lalita Sharma, Gaurav Sharma, Hitansh Raj and Ms. Aastha Kohli, Advocates, for respondent No.4. : Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.5 Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Ms. Lalita Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, respondent No.4 and respondent No.5, respectively. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) That this Hon'ble court may kindly direct the respondent department to count the services rendered by the petitioner on Daily Wage basis followed by regularization as qualifying services for pensionary benefits w.e.f. due date with all the consequential and financial benefits in the interest of justice. ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-VIII) in a time bound manner.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that hisj representation dated 05.09.2024 (Annexure P-VIII) 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 -3- 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 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of eight 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 8th April, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)