IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6864/2025 Decided on: 26.05.2025 Sunita Sangroli …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “ That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to count the services of the petitioner since the initial date of her appointment on contract basis for all intents and purpose including seniority, promotion, pensionary benefits and increments and other consequential benefits in terms of the judgment dated 26.12.2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWPOA No.195/2019 titled as Sheela Devi Vs. State of H.P. & ors (Annexure P-2). 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner is that her representation dated 23.09.2024 (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 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. 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 26th May, 2025(rohit)