IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.82 of 2025 and connected Matters . Decided on: 3rd January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.82 of 2025 Lajwanti Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 84 of 2025 Manjeet Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 3. CWP No. 90 of 2025 Ranjeet Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma Additional Advocate General. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents in all the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of following almost common reliefs (prayers have been extracted from CWP No. 82 of 2025): - “a). A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to respondents 1 to 3 directing them to restore the dearness allowance on family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. January 2020 along with arrears from the date when the allowance was stopped b). A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent No. 2 and 3 to decide the representation dated 21/11/2024 within a time bound period.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case 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. 4. Once the legal principle involved in the adjudication of present petition has already been decided, it - 3 - 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, 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 January 3, 2025 R.Atal