IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14560 of 2024 Decided on: 6th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhavana Kumari and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Advocate vice Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, 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. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from the date of their initial engagement/appointment with all consequential benefits on the principle of equality as they are appointed on commission basis under same requisition of seats as per un-amended Rules. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 B. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the entire consequential benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of their initial appointment to till the date of realization.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that the representations preferred by them (Annexure P-5) 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 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 authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law 3 within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. 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