IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.15240 of 2024 and connected matters. Decided on: 3rd January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.15240 of 2024 Pranav Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.15241 of 2024 Raj Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 3. CWP No.15242 of 2024 Mohinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 4. CWP No.15243 of 2024 Anita ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ - 2 - 5. CWP No.15244 of 2024 Nisha ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 6. CWP No.15245 of 2024 Nisha Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents in all the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of following common relief (prayer has been extracted from CWP No. 15240 of 2024): - “a. That the directions may kindly be issued to the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 3 - respondents to count the contractual service of the petitioner with effect from the date of their appointment on contractual basis for all intents and purposes i.e. seniority, promotion, pay scale revised time to time, annual increment, proficiency step-up & promotion etc. and direct to release all consequential benefits as per the judgment passed by this Hon'ble court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 titled as Sh. Taj Mohammad and Ors. Vs. State of H.P., with connected matter decided on 03.08.2023. b) That Annexure P-3 may kindly be quashed and set-aside with the directions to redraw the seniority list whereby inducting the names of the applicants at a proper place, whereby giving the benefits to petitioners of their contractual service from the date of their initial appointment in the Department. c) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner from the due date with interest @12% per annum till the date of realization. d) That the respondents kindly be directed to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner same as has been granted to other similar situated person as per the judgment supra and thereafter fresh senior list may kindly be prepared. e) That respondent may kindly be directed to decide the case/representation (Annexure P-4) dated. 14.08.2024 in the light of judgments passed by this Hon'ble court in CW No. 2004 of 2017 titled as Sh. Taj Mohammad and Ors.Vs. State of H.P., with connected matter decided on 03.08.2023 in time bound manner.” - 4 - 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 writ 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 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 within a period of six - 5 - weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 3, 2025 R.Atal