IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4436 of 2025 Decided on: 27th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Naresh Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “1) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to pay the pension to the petitioner from the due date by granting her the benefit of Part time 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 water carrier service as well as whole time contingent paid service in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of HP in CWP no.3310 of 2011 titled as Leela Devi vs State and CWP(T) no.3603 of 2008 titled as Mehar Chand & Others in the interest of justice. 2) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the pension to the petitioner with interest @ 12% per annum.” 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 08.12.2023 (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 unproductive government induced litigation. 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent 3 authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 08.12.2023 (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law within a period of six 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 March 27, 2025 Judge Mukesh