IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.3990 & 3992 of 2025 Decided on: 8th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.3990 of 2025 Atma Ram Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.3992 of 2025 Sher Singh Chauhan ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of almost common relief, which has been extracted from CWP No. 3990 of 2025:- “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 27.09.2012, 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 dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), 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 - 3 - 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 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 8, 2025 R.Atal