IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15000 & 15001/2024 Decided on: 04.01.2025 1. CWP No. 15000/2024 Renuka Sharma & Anr. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 15001/2024 Shiv Raj & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 15000/2024:- “a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent department to count the service of petitioners rendered in contract basis for the purpose of seniority, pension, annual increment, earned leave. career progression scheme alongwith all other consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment on contract basis in the interest of justice. b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to decide the representations dated 15.07.2024 & 18.07.2024 (Annexure P- 3(Colly.) of petitioners within time bound manner.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations, annexed with the respective petitions, 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 redresssal 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 3 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, the instant petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 4th January 2025(rohit)