IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4584 of 2025 Decided on: 14th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Champa Devi & Anr ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rangil Singh, 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 grant of following substantive relief:- 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 and allow the actual financial benefits arising out of the regularization of the services of the petitioners after completion of 5 years of service from the date of her initial appointment on contract basis in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in case of C.W.P. No. 3544/2019 titled as State of H.P. and Others vs Surendra Sharma and Others decided on 06.11.2020 and implemented by the respondents in letter and spirit along with all consequential benefits of arrears of salary and allowances, pension, contribution to GPF alongwith due and admissible interest thereon.” 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 dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P-5), 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 - 3 - 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 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 May 14, 2025 R.Atal