1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8254 of 2024 Date of decision: 09.05.2025 Mahima Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have not filed reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “i). That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner on regular basis instead of contract basis by modifying office order dated 22.8.2022 Annexure P-1 with further directions to grant all consequential benefits which includes seniority, arrears etc. etc and the arrears may be ordered to be paid along with interest a,9 % p.a. -2- ii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the similar benefit to the petitioner as has been granted to similarly situated persons vide judgment titled as Gafur Mohammad Vs. State of HP Annexure P-2 with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority, arrears etc.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 19.07.2024 (Annexure P-4) 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 9th May, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)