IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10444 of 2024 Decided on: 8th January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Lalita ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Amrick Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta and Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocates General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to count the entire service of the petitioner, including initial 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - service on contract basis i.e. from July 2019 followed by regularization i.e. 2022 towards seniority alongwith all consequential benefits being a covered matter by the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 03.08.2023 in CWP No. 2004/2017 a/w CWP No. 629/2018 upholding the judgment dated 25.05.2017 passed by the erstwhile Learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3337/2016 whereby the service rendered by the employees concerned on contract basis has been ordered to be counted for the purpose of seniority along with consequential benefits. (ii That act of the respondents by not counting the services rendered by the petitioner on contract basis as JBT Teacher for the purpose of seniority 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 03.08.2023 in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 a/w CWP No. 629/2018 upholding the judgment dated 25.05.2017 passed by the erstwhile Learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.3337/2016..” 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 29.02.2024 (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 - 3 - 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 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 petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 8, 2025 R.Atal