IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4150/2025 Decided on: 24.03.2025 Koushalya Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate vice Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to superannuate petitioner at the age of 60 years by adding two years in her regular service w.e.f. 30.09.2021 30.09.2023 and thereafter petitioner may be granted pension and pensionary benefits by considering her service on regular basis w.e.f 23.10.2013 to 30.09.2023 as qualifying period for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (ii) That the respondents may be directed to grant the benefit to the petitioner in pursuance to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. others. III. That the respondent may be directed to decide the representation Annexure P-3 in stipulated period. (iv) That the petitioner may kindly be granted benefits w.e.f. 23.10.2013 to 30.09.2023 including pension and pensionary benefits alongwith interests.” 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 17.02.2025 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 in-definitely 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. 3 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 communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 24th March, 2025(rohit)