IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15036 of 2024 Date of decision: 07.01.2025 Narvada Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan K. Sharma & Mr. Anshuman Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, 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 Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to count the contractual service for the purpose of qualifying service for next promotional post and the same may also be counted for the grant of annual increment/seniority and other consequential benefits i.e., qualifying service for the purpose of promotion and pensionary benefits.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 17.09.2024 (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 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. 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. -3- The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 7th January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)