IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2060/2025 Decided on: 24.03.2025 Trilok Chand …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, 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:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued to struck-down, quash the retirement order dated 30th April, 2021 (Annexure P-1) and directing the respondents to entitled the petitioner for retirement from the services at the age of 60 years in view of the Judgment and also released the compensation from 30-04-2021 to up till the date of retirement i.e 60 years by holding the same against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Court in CWP No 2274/2021 titled as Satya Devi and Other versus State of H.P and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Other, and also violation of Articles 14,16,& 21 of the Constitution of India. II) That a writ in nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in view of laid down by the Hon'ble Court in CWP No 2274/2021 titled as Satya Devi and Other versus State of H.P and Other, for all intents and purpose with all consequential benefits incidental thereof.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that his representation dated 27.10.2024 Annexure P-3 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 in-definitely 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 3 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 petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 24th March, 2025(rohit)