IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14402 of 2024 Decided on: 1st January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Manohar Lal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Davinder Chauhan Jaita, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, 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:- “i. That the petitioner be considered for all benefit of his service in the nature of increment and pensionary benefit for the period under which he has worked as contract employee followed by his regularization from the initial date of appointment. ii. That the petitioner be considered for seniority and consequential benefits by counting his entire service especially on contract basis from the initial date of 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 appointment for all benefits in terms of the judgments as annexed herewith this vide SLP(C) No.13999/2020 and other connected petitions decided on 07.08.2023 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case State of H.P. & others Vs. Sheela Devi and CWP No.2004/2017 alongwith CWP No.629/2018 decided on 03.08.2023 titled as Taj Mohmad & others Vs. State of H.P. & others alongwith other connected case.” 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 09.09.2023 (Annexure P-1) 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 09.09.2023 (Annexure P-1) 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 01, 2025 Judge Mukesh