IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.15384 of 2024 and connected matters. Decided on: 8th January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 15384 of 2024 Meena Kumari Sharma & Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 15385 of 2024 Kapil and others ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 3. CWP No. 15386 of 2024 Anuj Kumari and others ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 4. CWP No. 15387 of 2024 Indu Sharma and Anr ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 5. CWP No. 15388 of 2024 Ishwar Dutt and others ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ - 2 - 6. CWP No. 15389 of 2024 Sushma Devi and Anr ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 7. CWP No. 15390 of 2024 Madan Lal Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Anup Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. L.N.Sharma Additional Advocate 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 in all the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of following almost common relief (prayer has been extracted 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 3 - from CWP No. 15384 of 2024): - “i. That the Petitioners may kindly be held entitled for counting of their contract services followed by regularization, w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment on contract basis towards seniority, promotion, pay-fixation, payment of arrears of salary, service increments and pension in terms of the judgements passed in 'Taj Mohammad Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & ors.' in CWP No. 2004/2017 decided on 03.08.2023 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, annexed with the respective writ petitions, have 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 months together would not only give rise to unnecessary - 4 - 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, these writ petitions are 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 8, 2025 R.Atal