IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14878 & 15096/2024 Decided on: 04.01.2025 1. CWP No.14878/2024 Surjeet Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No.15096/2024 Kavita Chaudhary …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. R.L. Verma, Advocate in CWP No.14878/2024 and vice Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate in CWP No. 15096. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 14878/2024:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “ i. That this Hon'ble court may kindly issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to count the entire service rendered on a contract basis from the initial appointment date for increments, seniority, pension, pay scale, and other benefits, from the date of regularization. ii. That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to revise/redraw the seniority list of Shastri to include the entire service rendered on a contract basis from the initial appointment date for all 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 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 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 petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner, 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 04th January 2025(rohit)