IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15724/2024 Decided on: 09.01.2025 Balbir Singh & Anr. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Umesh Kanwar, 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. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ (A) That the direction may be issued to the respondents to count the entire services rendered by petitioners on contract basis, from the date of their initial appointment, followed by regularization for the purpose of increments, seniority and consequential benefits from the date of their initial appointment as per Taj Mohammod vs State of HP CWP No. 2004/2017, Dr. Shweta Sharma vs State of HP CWPOA No. 3929/2020 & Vijay Vs State CWP No. 542/2024. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 B) That the direction may be issued to the respondents to netreat the petitioners, who were initially appointed to the post of Clerk on contract basis, as regular with all consequential benefits including counting the period for the purpose of seniority. C) That direction may kindly be issued to the respondents Registrar to promote petitioners to the post of Senior Assistant after completing of 7 years of services and further consequential promotion to the higher post in hierarchy.” 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 respective representations at Annexure P-4 (Colly) 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 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 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, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 09th January 2025(rohit)