IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8146 of 2024 Date of decision: 06.01.2025 Nitin Sharma. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Though the respondents have not filed reply to the writ petition, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties matter is taken up for disposal at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondents to treat the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis from his initial appointment i.e. 20.11.2010 and the respondent department further directed to release all consequential benefits with interest from date of accrual till the date of realization in view of judgment passed in CWP No.5090 of 2022 titled as Umesh Jaswal versus State of HP and other in the interest of justice and fair play; In Alternative 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent department to count the service of petitioner rendered in contract basis for the purpose of seniority, pension, annual increment and career scheme along with progression all other consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment on contract basis in the interest of justice.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure P-5) 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 their 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. -3- 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 petitioner 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 6th January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)