IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3896/2025 Decided on: 05.05.2025 Veena Devi …Petitioner Versus HRTC & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. 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 this Hon'ble Court may please to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondents, to appoint the petitioner on regular basis from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 09.07.1991 and grant her all consequential benefits like arrear of pay, seniority, fixation of pay, increments and pension etc, in view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide Annexure P-3. ii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant and release the actual monetary benefits i.e. arrears of salary, annual 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 increments etc. to the petitioner, from the date of initial appointment along with 9% interest, in a time bound manner. iii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to refix the salary of the petitioner by counting the services rendered by the petitioner on part time as well as on contract basis for the purpose of annual increments etc. ” 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 dated 03.12.2024 (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 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 3 within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 05th May, 2025(rohit)