IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2578/2025 Decided on: 25.02.2025 Sandeep Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Balwant Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Amandeep 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 a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent department to consider the respective cases of petitioners for regularization with effect from the date of her engagement/appointment i.e. 2010 with all consequential benefits in terms of the judgment in case LPA No. 54 of 2013 titled as State of H.P. versus Om Prakash., Annexure P-6 by Hon'ble Court of Himachal Pradesh. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ii. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent department to decide the representation Annexure P-8, in a time bound manner in the interest of justice.” 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 21.12.2024 (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. 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 3 communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 25th February, 2025(rohit)