IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4318 of 2025 Date of decision: 25.03.2025 Jatinder Kaur. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, 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 relief:- “(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to grant work charge status to the husband of the petitioner after the completion of 8 years of service w.e.f. 26.03.2002 in view of law laid down by this Hon'ble court in CWP NO. 2735 of 2010, Rakesh Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 28th July, 2010 and release the amount of arrears along with interest at market rates till such payment is made, and grant all the consequential benefits thereof such as arrears of salary, pay fixation etc. in the interest of justice.” 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 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 her representation dated 05.02.2025 (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 their 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 eight -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 25th March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)