IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.15372 of 2024 Decided on: 8th January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Jawahar Lal .. ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. H.M. Thakur, 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:- “(A. That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to convert 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - the services of the petitioner on contractual basis against the post of pump attendant with effect from due date, i.e., 01.04.2020, instead of 27.09.2022 in the time scale of pay, with all consequential benefits. B. That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to convert the services of the petitioners on regular basis after completion of 2 years of contractual services, w.e.f. due date, i.e., 01.04.2022, instead of 08.06.2023, with all consequential benefits, i.e., seniority, arrear and monetary benefits in the interest of justice and fair play.” 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 14.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) 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 the State. Not taking decision on the representation for - 3 - 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