IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.1124 of 2025 Decided on: 24th February, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Satish Chander ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Suresh Saini, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Addtional 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 grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i That the respondents may be directed to order conversion of part time services into daily paid services/whole time services from due date i.e. 26-06-2008 and from daily paid services/whole 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - time services to regular services from due date i.e. 26-06-2015 in view of the settled law (Annexure P-3). ii) That the respondents may be directed to grant all consequential benefits on account of benefits, regarding length of service to be granted in the light of judgment dated 09-04-2015 (Annexure P- 3).” 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 03.10.2024 (Annexure P-4), 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 - 3 - 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 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