IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.14002, 14546, 14839, 14840, 14841, 14842, 14843 of 2024 Date of decision: 02.01.2025 1. CWP No.14002 of 2024 Sanjeev Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP And Others ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.14546 of 2024 Satish Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP And Others ...Respondents. 3. CWP No.14839 of 2024 Manoj Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of HP And Another ...Respondents. 4. CWP No.14840 of 2024 Sanjeev Kuar Dhiman ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Another ...Respondents. 5. CWP No. 14841 of 2024 Hariman ...Petitioner. 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.14842 of 2024 Narender Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Another ...Respondents. 7. CWP No.14843 of 2024 Virender Kumar ...Petitioners. Versus The State of HP And Another ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : 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. The writ petitions have been filed for the grant of following substantive relief(s) extracted from one of the writ petitions:- “1. That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant to the petitioner the benefit of -3- contract service for all the purposes including seniority, annual increments along with all the consequential benefits as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court in "Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others," CWP No. 2004 of 2017. Further direct the respondents to release to the petitioner all the consequential benefits along with arrears at the rate of 9% per annum.” 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 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. -4- 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 2nd January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)