IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5052 of 2025 Date of decision: 07.04.2025 Rajesh Nanda. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, 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 reliefs:- “I. That Appropriate writ, order and directions may kindly be issued thereby ordering and directing the respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioner with effect from the date of their initial engagement/ appointment along with all consequential benefits, in light of Judgments passed by this Hon'ble Court, in a time bound manner. II. That Appropriate writ, order and directions may kindly be issued thereby ordering and directing the respondents to extend the same and similar relief as has been extended to Sh. Kuldip Chand and to similarly situated persons, in term of the judgments passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP/ 7602/2010, titled as Om Parkash Vs 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- State of H.P & Others, and connected matters and further in view of the orders passed by the respondents vide Annexure P-7 & P-8. III. That Appropriate writ, order and directions may kindly be issued thereby ordering and directing the respondents to release the entire consequential benefits arising out therein on account of regularization of services of the Petitioner with effect from the date of their initial engagement/ appointment, along with interest 9% per annum, from the date of their initial appointment/engagement, till the date of realization, in favour of the Petitioner.” 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 29.12.2024 (Annexure P-9) 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 -3- 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 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 7th April, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)