IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.14880 of 2024 Decided on: 3rd January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Shishu Pal & Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General, for respondents No. 1. Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate appearing vice Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, learned counsel, accept service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 and 3, respectively. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - following substantive reliefs:- “(i) a) That the respondent may kindly be directed to consider the representation dated 24.06.2024 Annexure P-4 whereby the petitioners requested to count the contract service towards total length of service for grant of Promotion may kindly be allowed. b) That contract service of the petitioners w.e.f. i.e 21.06.2017 and 22.09.2017 i.e. the date of their initial appointment to 01.10.2020 i.e the date of their regularization Annexure P-2 & P-3 may kindly be counted towards total length of service for all intents & Purpose and other consequential benefits. ” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representation dated 24.06.2024 (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 his grievances. This is also the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of - 3 - 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 petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 3, 2025 R.Atal