IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4186 of 2025 alongwith CWP No.4188 of 2025 Decided on: 9th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.4186 of 2025 Arvind Kumar and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.4188 of 2025 Ramesh Chand and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Shivangi, Advocate vice Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. Both these writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.4186 of 2025 read as under:- “a. That respondent may kindly be directed to credit the earned leaves in the leave account of petitioner admissible to them due to retrospective regularization of their services with all financial benefits. b. That all earned/privileged leaves which has not availed by petitioner for the period when petitioners has also served the department from initial date of appointment may be counted as earned leave with financial benefits in accordance with judgment passed by this Hon’ble court and same be credited in leave account of petitioners and thereafter same may be paid to them or earned leaves may be enchased in favour of petitioner. c. That the word “without financial benefits” in letter dated 17-12-2024 may be quashed and set aside.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in these cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations each dated 10.11.2024, annexed with the writ petitions as Annexures P-9 and P-10, respectively, have 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 3 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 the above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh