IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4056 of 2025 Decided on: 8th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Anil Kumar ....Petitioner Versus HRTC & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Parveen Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned Counsel 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 by issuing writ of mandamus, the respondent-Corporation may be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e from 28.09.2015, strictly in accordance with the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1557-1564 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16158-16165/2016) titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation Versus Lekh Ram Etc. Etc., which attained finality in terms of judgment rendered by this Hon,ble Court in the case Gaurav Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation in CWP No. 1157 of 2020 with all consequential service benefits. ii) That the respondents may further be directed to pay arrears alongwith interest 9% per annum flowing out of his regularization as Conductor w.e.f. 28.09.2015.” 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 22.12.2022 (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 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 - 3 - 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 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 May 8, 2025 R.Atal