IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16722 of 2024 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 1st January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.16722 of 2024 Amin Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.16724 of 2024 Ramesh Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.16727 of 2024 Usha Thakur …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Pawanish K. Shukla and Mr. Abhay Kaushal, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.16722 of 2024 read as under:- “(a) That a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, quashing the impugned action of the respondents, whereby petitioner has been denied the benefit of Earned Leave, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and against the settled law of jurisprudence. (b) That the writ in nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of Earned Leave retrospectively as per the mandate of the CCS (Leave) Rules 1972. (c) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued to direct the respondent to decide the request/ representations (Annexure P-4) as per the mandate of the Sunita Sangroli’s case Judgment in the interest of justice.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in these cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions, have still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority. 3 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, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 01, 2025 Judge Mukesh