IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.642 of 2025 Decided on: 9th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Charan Singh and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Karam Pal, Advocate vice Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i. That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent department to grant the work charge status or regularization to the petitioners after completion of 8 (eight) years of service with all consequential benefits with up-to-date interest, such as; pay-fixation, seniority, arrears of pay, pension, promotion etc., in the interest of justice. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 ii. That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent department to rectify anomaly in the pay of petitioners and refix the salary of the petitioners at par with similar situated employees of the same department and pay the entire arrears of salary/ emoluments alongwith upto date interest.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that the representation dated 07.01.2024 (Annexure P-7) preferred by them 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 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 3 authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation 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 petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh