IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15048 of 2024 Decided on: 6th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roopa Rani …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned 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 respondents may kindly be directed to count the service rendered by the petitioner's husband on contract basis prior to his regularization as qualifying service for purpose of pension. b. That respondents may kindly be further directed to consider the case of petitioner's husband for annual increments from initial date of appointment on contract basis. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 c. That in alternate respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner's husband for pension and increments as per law laid down by this Hon’ble court in its judgments passed in case of Sheela Devi and Jagdish Chand case and thereafter in case of Hem Raj Sharma which has already been implemented and same treatment may also be extended to petitioner also.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 03.07.2024 (Annexure P-7) 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 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 3 authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 03.07.2024 (Annexure P-7) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 06, 2025 Judge Mukesh