IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3386 of 2025 Decided on: 12th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pyar Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, whereby directing the respondents to grant the pension to the petitioner w.e.f. due date, i.e., 01.05.2022 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, on the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 basis of judgment, (Annexure P-3), rendered in Balo Devi’s case with effect from due date till the date of its actual realization, with all consequential benefits. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the entire retiral benefits, such as balance amount of DCRG and Leave Encashment etc. to the petitioner with effect from due date, i.e. 01.05.2022 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum till the date of its actual realization.” 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 13.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) 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 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 3 authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) in accordance with law within a period of six 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 March 12, 2025 Judge Mukesh