IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 578/2025 Decided on: 08.01.2025 Anu Dogra …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate vice Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, 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 act of the respondent in not regularizing the services of the petitioner from which the petitioner was appointed on contract basis along with financial benefits may kindly be held unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified, unwarranted, invalid, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the law laid down by the Ld. Erstwhile Tribunal vide judgment dated 11-1-2018 (Annexure- P/3). 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date the petitioner was appointed on contract basis along with all consequential benefits being a covered matter by the law laid down by the Ld. Erstwhile Tribunal dated 11-1-2018 (Annexure-P/3) in T.A. No. 4487/2015 and judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 3038 of 2022 whereby the incumbents get the regularization from the initial date of their appointment on contract basis along with consequential benefits and the respondent department is under legal duty to grant the regularization from the initial date of appointment along with other financial benefits.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 17.09.2024 (Annexure P-5) 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 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. 3 5. In view of above, the instant petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the 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 petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 08th January 2025(rohit)