IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3290/2025 Decided on: 10.03.2025 Rajesh Kumar …Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Rahul Thakur, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ (i) That the Writ of mandamus be issued by directing the respondent authorities to count uninterrupted contractual services of the petitioner from 09.09.2013 to 07.07.2017 followed by regularization for annual increments and qualifying service for pensionary benefits under CCS Pension Rules, 1972. (ii) That if the request of the petitioner was conceded and he found eligible for pensionary benefits under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 then arrear of pension from the date of superannuation i.e. 30.04.2024 be released in his favour with all consequential benefits.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner is that his representation dated 25.12.2024 (Annexure P-4) 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 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 March, 10 2025(rohit)