IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9842 of 2024 Date of decision: 02.01.2025 Attar Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kaul and Ms. Sheetal Kaula, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Dalip K. Sharma and Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General, for respondents-State. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a). That the respondents may be directed to give regular appointment to the petitioner as members of service in the cadre of 'Drawing Master' from the date of initial appointment i.e. 31.01.2015(Annexure P-1) (contract basis) and count the service of petitioner rendered on 'contract basis' for the purpose of seniority, pension, annual increment, earned leave, carrier progression scheme along with all other consequential benefits, from 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- the date of initial appointments along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f., the date when the same fell due till its actual realization, in the interest of law and justice. b) That during the pendency of the present writ petition the respondents may kindly be directed to consider and decide the representation dated 13.07.2024 (Annexure P- 3) in a time bound manner, in terms of judgment passed in CWP No. 2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohd. Vs State of H.P. & Ors., decided 03.08.2023(Annexure P-2), in the interest of law and 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 13.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) 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 -3- 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 eight 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 2nd January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)