IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.14914 & 14992 of 2024 . Decided on: 3rd January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.14914 of 2024 Nitika Bansal & Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 14992 of 2024 Bandna ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Dalip K.Sharma Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - behalf of the respondents in both the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of following almost common reliefs (prayers have been extracted from CWP No. 14914 of 2024): - “(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent department to count the service of petitioner rendered in contract basis for the purpose of seniority, pension, annual increment and career scheme along with progression all other consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment on contract basis in the interest of justice. b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent department to count the service of petitioner rendered in contract basis for the purpose of earned leave from the date of initial appointment on contract basis in the interest of justice..” 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 - 3 - 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 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 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 3, 2025 R.Atal