Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.7740 & 7742 of 2025 Date of decision: 09.05.2025 1. CWP No.7740 of 2025 Sunil Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Anr. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.7742 of 2025 Nokh Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.7740 of 2025 read as under:- -2- “a. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct The respondents by way of issuance of Writ of Mandamus to consider the petitioner as having been appointed against the post of JBT pursuant to office order dated 28.09.2020 on regular basis for all intents and purpose and further this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the word 'contract' from the appointment letter Annexure P-2 and granting him regularization form the date of his initial appointment i.e. 28.09.2020. b. This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent State to pay to the petitioner all the emoluments as he is entitled at par with regular employee in the establishment of respondent department w.e.f.28.09.2020 with all consequential benefits including counting the period for the purpose of seniority etc.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their respective representations have 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 -3- 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, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective representations of the petitioners, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 9th May, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)