Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.4108 & 4110 of 2025 Date of decision: 23.05.2025 1. CWP No.4108 of 2025 Pradeep Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.4110 of 2025 Bhagat Ram Sharma. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. H.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, 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.4108 of 2025 read as under:- -2- “i). That the petitioner may held entitled to the similar relief and orders as passed by this Hon’ble Court in judgment dated 7.7.2023 passed in CWP No. 2500 of 2021 titled Ranjit Singh Vs State of H.P. ii) That the letter dated 27.11.2014, Annexure P-4, and office order dated 22.7.2021, Annexure P-5, have already been held to be illegal vide judgment dated 7.7.2023 passed in CWP No. 2500 of 2021 and hence the petitioner may be held entitled the benefit of notification dated 27.9.2012, Annexure P-3, with all the consequential benefits.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their respective representations have 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 -3- otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation. 5. In view of above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective 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 23rd May, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)