IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.3962 of 2025 Decided on: 21st March, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Deepak Kumar & Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev K.Suri and Mr. Vijay Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this writ petition be treated to have been filed only on behalf of petitioners No. 1 to 10. He further submits that petitioners No. 11 to 13 be permitted to file separate writ petitions for the cause of action raised in the present petition. Prayer is accepted. The present petition is now treated to have been filed on behalf of petitioners No. 1 to 10 and petitioners No. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 11to 13 are permitted to file separate writ petitions on the same cause of action. Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs: - “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the work charge status/regularization to petitioners immediately on completion of 8 years of daily wage service w.e.f. 2002, as per the regularization policy framed by the State Government prevalent at that relevant point of time and as per settled position of law, with all consequential benefits including pay fixation, increments, seniority and other benefits etc. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefits of the Rakesh Kumar's and Ashwani Kumar's Judgment to the petitioners and grant the work charge status to the petitioners on completion of eight years of daily wage service. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to decide the representations (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioners within time bound manner..” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representation - 3 - [Annexure P-3 (colly)] 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 authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation 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. - 4 - Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March 21, 2025 R.Atal