IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3748 of 2025 Decided on: 19th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anup 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. Karam Pal, Advocate vice Mr. S.P. Chatterji, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned 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:- “A. That the respondents may very kindly be directed to count the daily wage services rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of pension keeping in view of judgment dated 8.3.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 Sunder Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. and Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022 Balo Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. and granted pension w.e.f. 01.10.2015. B. That respondents may kindly be directed to release the arrear of pension with interest at market rate.” 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 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 13.01.2025 (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 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 dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure P/5) in accordance with law within a period of 3 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 19, 2025 Judge Mukesh