IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4014 of 2025 Decided on: 21st March, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Sukhbir ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L. N. Sharma Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to vive the work charge/daily wager status after completion of 10 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - years of services as part time worker. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to regularise the service of the Petitioners w.e.f. due date i.e. completion of 7 years of service with all consequential benefits as per the judgment passed in CWP No. 8127 of 2013 dated 13-05-2014 titled as Sarvo Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others.” 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 11.12.2024, (Annexure P-6) 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 - 3 - 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 March 21, 2025 R.Atal