IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10377 of 2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 28th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.10377 of 2025 Monika Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.10379 of 2025 Sharda Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.10380 of 2025 Pratibha Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.10381 of 2025 Anjana Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 For the Petitioners: Mr. Sameer Miyan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. All these writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive relief in CWP No.10377 of 2025 reads as under:- “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, directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner as Staff Nurse from her initial date of appointment on contract basis, along with all the consequential benefits, in view of the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Parvati Devi and Nisha Kumari Case Supra.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in these cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions as Annexures P-10 and P-11, 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 3 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 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 the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners (Annexures P-10/P-11) 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 June 28, 2025 Judge Mukesh