IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10336/2025 a/w connected matters Decided on: 28.06.2025 1. CWP No.10336/2025 Praveen Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 10337/2025 Nitish Gautam …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 3. CWP No. 10341/2025 Mittar Dev …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 4. CWP No. 10348/2025 Pradeep Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram 2 Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Arun Kaushal and Mr. Shagun Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents in all the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No.10336/2025:- “(a) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents by way of issuance of Writ of Mandamus to consider the petitioner as having been appointed against the post of JBT pursuant to office order dated 27.08.2014 on regular basis for all intents and purpose and further this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the word 'contract from the appointment letter Annexure P-2 and granting him regularization form the date of his initial appointment i.e. 27.08.2014. b) This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent State to pay to the petitioner all the emoluments as he is entitled at par with regular employee in the establishment of respondent department w.e.f. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 3 27.08.2014 with all consequential benefits including counting the period for the purpose of seniority etc.” 3. According to the petitioner(s), the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner(s) is that their representations, annexed with the respective petitions, 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 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 redresssal 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, the instant petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner(s), in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be 4 also communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 28th June, 2025(rohit)