IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.3314 of 2025 Decided on: 11th March, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Ashok Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Nagta and Mr. Ketan Singh, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Narender Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Narender Singh, learned Counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 and respondent No.3, respectively. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit to the petitioner in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No 1595 of 2019, Titled as Vivek Thakur and others Vs State of HP and Others and the other connected matters. ii) That respondents be directed to decide the representation dated 17.02.2025 within stipulated period. iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the pending arrears along with interest of the petitioner. ” 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 17.02.2025 (Annexure P-2), 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 months together would not only give rise to unnecessary - 3 - 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 March 11, 2025 R.Atal