IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7348 of 2024 Decided on: 27th February, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar & Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Devender K.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sikandar Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have not filed the reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i That act of the respondent by way of impugned order (annexure P-7) in not counting the services rendered by the petitioners on contract basis as Lecturers for the purpose of regularization from 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - the initial date of appointment along with all consequential benefits may kindly be held unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified, unwarranted, invalid, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 02-05- 2012 in CWP No. 7602 of 2010 (Annexure P-3). (ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to regularized the services of the petitioners from the initial date of appointment on contract basis along with all consequential in view judgment passed in CWP No. 7602 of 2010 (Annexure P-3). In the interest of justice and fair play or in alternative the service rendered by the petitioners on contractual basis be counted for the purpose of increment, seniority, career progression scheme and for pension with all consequential benefits.” 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 22.12.2023 (Annexure P-8), 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 - 3 - 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 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 February 27, 2025 R.Atal