IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.15260 & 15356 of 2024 Decided on: 8th January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 15260 of 2024 Jyoti Sharma & Ors ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 15356 of 2024 Rakesh Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Yogesh K. Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta and Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocates General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - behalf of the respondent in both the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of following common reliefs (Prayers have been extracted from CWP No. 15260 of 2024):- “(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent department by directing them to grant seniority to the petitioners ,by counting the entire service rendered by the petitioners on contract basis in the cadre of Trained Graduate Teacher ,from the date of their initial contract appointment, with all consequential benefits. ii.) That further mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent department by directing the respondent department to count, the entire contract service of the petitioners, for the purpose of annual increments, re-fixation ofpay, arrears on that account, pension and all other consequential service benefits.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievances of the petitioners are 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 - 3 - 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, these writ petitions are 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 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 8, 2025 R.Atal