IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15090 of 2024 Date of decision: 07.01.2025 Sudesh Chauhan. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, 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:- “(i). That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the services rendered by the petitioner on contract basis from the date of her initial appointment i-e w-e-f 19-07- 1997 followed by her regularization on 01-01-2006 may be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits as well as annual increments with all consequential benefits as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in case CWPOA No. 5187 of 2020 titled as titled as Sunil Dutt & others versus State of H.P. & others along with connected matters.” 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- 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 14.08.2024 (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 redressal of their 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 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks -3- 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 7th January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)