IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15034/2024 Decided on: 09.01.2025 Akash Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That act of the respondent in not counting the services rendered by the petitioner on contract basis as Language Teacher for the purpose of seniority along with all consequential benefits may kindly discriminatory, be held unconstitutional, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified, unwarranted, invalid, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court on dated 3-8-2023 (Annexure- P/3) in CW.P. No. 2004/2017 a/w C.W.P. No 629/2018 upholding the judgment dated 25-5-2017 passed by the erstwhile Ld. H.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3337/2016. II. That the respondent may kindly be directed to count the entire service of the petitioner, including initial service on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 contract followed by regularization towards seniority along with all consequential benefits being a covered matter by the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court vide 3-8-2023 (Annexure-P/3) in CW.P. No. 2004/2017 a/w C.W.P. No. 629/2018 upholding the judgment dated 25-5- 2017 passed by the erstwhile Ld. H.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3337/2016 whereby the service rendered by the employees concerned on contract basis has been ordered to be counted for the purpose of seniority along with consequential benefits and the respondent department is under legal duty to count the Contract services of the petitioner for the purpose of annual increments.” 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 14.11.2023 (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 redresssal 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. 3 5. In view of above, the instant petition is disposed of by directing 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, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 09th January 2025(rohit)