IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3510 of 2025 Date of decision: 13.03.2025 Naresh Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) Present petition may kindly be allowed and. respondents are directed to implement the policy in letter and spirit. As per policy dated 3.10.2015, service of the petitioner, who have completed 9600 hrs of service or 7 years of service in 20.11.2022 may kindly be order to be brought on contract basics from the due date and regularised after completion of the contractual period of two years on 21.11.2024. ii) That, the respondent may kindly be directed to regularised the service of the petitioner after completion two years contractual period from 2022 to 2024, with all actual consequential benefits, as per the policy dated 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- 3.10.2015 and also regularise the service of the petitioner from the due date with all consequential benefit. iii). That respondent may kindly be directed to grant the services benefit along with compounding interest.” 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 26.02.2025 (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 redressal of their 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 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 eight weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 13th March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)