IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10350 of 2024 Decided on: 2nd January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Balwant Singh & Ors ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following identical substantive reliefs:- “(i) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondent department, to count the services 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - rendered by the petitioner on contract basis for the purpose of seniority, increments and pension and release all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, from the initial date of appointment i.e. 7.10.2016. (ii) That Entire record pertaining to instant case may please be summoned and examined, which would help this Hon'ble Court to arrive at just conclusion. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant and release the actual monetary benefits i.e. arrears of salary etc. to the petitioner, from the date of initial appointment along with 9% interest, in stipulated period..” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representation dated 09.06.2024 (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 - 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 the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 2, 2025 R.Atal