IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2302 of 2025 Date of decision: 27.02.2025 Lata Thakur. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate, vice Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional 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 reliefs:- “a) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus whereby, the respondents may kindly be direct to considered the case of the petitioner for deed regularization since from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner on contract basis to the post of JBT, along with all consequential benefits. b) That the contract entered between the petitioner and the respondents at the time of initial appointment of the petitioner and further on annual basis till the date of regularization may kindly be considered as null and void. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- c) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release all the consequential benefits including the arrears along with interest @ 12% till the date of realization.” 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 (Annexure P-1) 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 their 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 -3- consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of eight 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 27th February, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)