IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2132 of 2025 Decided on: 25th February, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Balam Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, 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 the grant of following substantive relief:- “(i). That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to give regularization to the petitioner against the post of Language Teacher on completion of 3 years continuous contractual service from the due date i.e. January, 2018 in view of the judgment dated 31.08.2022 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.342/2021 titled as Yashwant Singh & others v/s State of H.P. & others alongwith connected matters 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 (Annexure P-5) with all consequential benefits including seniority from the due date.” 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 dated 22.10.2024 (Annexure P-6) 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 authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 22.10.2024 (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law within a period of six 3 weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua February 25, 2025 Judge Mukesh