IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.1098 of 2025 Decided on: 24th February, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Prem Lal ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i That the present writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and the respondents may be directed to regularize the service of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - petitioner's wife on the completion of their three years contractual service w.e.f April 2018 in view of in CWP No. 342 of 2021. (ii) That the respondents may be kindly be directed to grant arrears as accrued from 2018 till the death of the petitioner wife to petitioner alongwith consequential 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 his representation, 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 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. - 3 - 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 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, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge February 24 2025 R.Atal