IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6862 of 2025 Decided on: 23rd May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pradeep Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional 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 relief:- “(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent department to decide the representation dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure P-3) made by the petitioner within a time bound manner and grant seniority and all other service benefits to the petitioner from the date when the petitioner was brought on contract basis in light of the judgment dated 21.08.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWPOA No.5507 of 2020, titled as 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Oma Wati and another v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and others (Annexure P-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 31.12.2024 (Annexure P-3) 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 31.12.2024 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law within a period of six 3 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 May 23, 2025 Judge Mukesh