IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 15014,15015, 15016, 15017, 15038, 15006, 15007, 15025 of 2024 Date of decision: 07.01.2025 1. CWP No.15014 of 2024 Sunil Dutt ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Another ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.15015 of 2024 Des Raj ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Another ...Respondents. 3. CWP No.15016 of 2024 Devanti ...Petitioner Versus The State of HP And Another ...Respondents. 4. CWP No.15017 of 2024 Kamal Kishore ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Another ...Respondents. 5. CWP No.15038 of 2024 Pushap Raj and Others ...Petitioners. Versus The State of HP And Another ...Respondents. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- 6. CWP No.15006 of 2024 Amit Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Another ...Respondents. 7. CWP No.15007 of 2024 Devyani ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Another ...Respondents. 8. CWP No.15025 of 2024 Mahender Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Another ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioners : Ms. Kiran Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : 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. -3- 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.15014 of 2024 read as under:- “A. It is therefore, respectfully prayed that keeping in view of the averments made in the present petition the present petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents may please be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for treating the appointment on regular basis from the initial date of appointment. B. That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent State to pay to the petitioner all emoluments as they are entitled at par with regular employee in the establishment of respondent department from the initial date of appointment with all consequential benefits including counting the period for the purpose of seniority, increment, arrears of pay, available to regular employees etc, with 18% interest per annum from the due date till actual date of payment to the petitioner.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their respective representations 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 -4- 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 above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective 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. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 07th January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)