IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.5144 of 2025 Decided on: 20th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Gian Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 6. Mr. T.R.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. T.R.Sharma, learned Counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 6 and respondent No.7, 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 a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 to 6 to confer the work charge status to the petitioner with due date, i.e. w.e.f. Jan-2002, before the date of regularization as on 31-3-2004 for the intervening period (for about 2 years) in terms of the Judgment in CWP 2735/2010, Rakesh Kumar Versus State of H.P. (alongwith other connected matters) as well as counting the said period for the purpose of pensionary benefits, in terms of the Judgment passed in CWP No. 6167/2012 titled as Sukru Ram Versus State of H.P., Decided on 6-3-2013 alongwith arrears and interest @ 12 % per annum, in favour of the petitioner, with the further direction to respondent No.7 to implement the judgment in letter and spirit, in accordance with law. ” 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 05.03.2025 (Annexure P-2), 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 - 3 - 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 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 20, 2025 R.Atal