IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.3218 & 3220 of 2025 Date of decision: 07.03.2025 1. CWP No.3218 of 2025 Hira Mani. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.3220 of 2025 Swal Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Ms. Ruchika Khachi, Advocate, vice Mr. C.D. Negi, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : 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. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.3218 of 2025 read as under:- Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- “a. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant all service benefits along with all the consequential benefits as per the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.2274 of 2021, Satya Devi vs. State of H.P. and Others and the other other connected matters.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their respective representations 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 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. -3- 5. In view of above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective 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 7th March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)