IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14004/2024 a/w connected matters Decided on: 09.01.2025 1. CWP No.14004/2024 Nisha Devi …Petitioner Versus State & Anr. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 15850/2024 Geeta Sharma …Petitioner Versus State & Anr. .…Respondents. 3. CWP No. 15856/2024 Sonika Koundal …Petitioner Versus State & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Rocky, Mr. Devender K. Sharma, and Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advocate, for the respective petitioners. For the respondent(s): Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 14004/2024:- “ a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent department to count the service of petitioner rendered in contract basis for the purpose of seniority, pension, annual increment and career scheme alongwith progression all other consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment on contract basis in the interest of justice. b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent department to count the service of petitioner rendered in contract basis for the purpose of earned leave from the date of initial appointment on contract basis in the interest of justice.” 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 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 3 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 above, the instant petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner, 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 09th January 2025(rohit)