IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15064 of 2024 Date of decision: 04.01.2025 Shishu Paul & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. 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 relief(s):- “a). That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to count the service of the petitioners on contract basis from the date of their initial appointment followed by their regularization, without any break, towards seniority and all other service benefits, with all consequential benefits; b). That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to re-draw the seniority list of Warder in the 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- respondent department, by counting the entire service rendered by petitioners, on contract basis in the cadre of Warder from the date of their initial appointment followed by their regularization, with all 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 representations dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure P-5 Colly.) 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 also bring in otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation. -3- 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations 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. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 4th January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)