IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3830/2025 Decided on: 19.03.2025 Leela Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Mayank Sharma Advocate vice Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Sikander Bhushan, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ (a) That writ in certiorari may kindly be issued and the impugned office order dated 31.08.2016 (Annexure P-4) may kindly be quashed and set-aside in the interest of justice. (b) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents that petitioner may kindly be deemed to be continued in service till she attained the age of 60 years, with all consequential benefits with up-to-date interest i.e. pay-fixation seniority, arrears of pay, revised pension, arrears of pension, revised gratuity, in the interest of justice. (c) That the direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to pay the compensation equal to the total emoluments which 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner had to be receive in service until she attained the age of 60 years alongwith consequential retiral benefits incidental thereof alongwith upto date 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 her representation at Annexure P-9 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 redresssal 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 above, the instant petition is disposed of by directing 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 3 communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March, 19 2025(rohit)