IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14830 of 2024 Date of decision: 02.01.2025 Manohar Lal. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Ms. Seema Azad, Advocate, vice Mr. Lakshay Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Dalip K. Sharma and Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General, for respondents-State. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, 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 writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to count the service rendered by petitioner on contract basis as JBT from 02-09-1997 to 05-07-2006 for seniority, annual increment, pensionary and other consequential benefit as per the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in LPA No.232 of 2024 decided on 02-09-2024 titled as Ram Chand & others VS State Himachal Pradesh & 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- others (Annexure P-1) in the interest of justice and fair play.” 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 22.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) 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 -3- consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of eight 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 2nd January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)