IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15588/2024 a/w connected matters Decided on: 09.01.2025 1. CWP No.15588/2024 Shavinder Kumar Sharma …Petitioner Versus HPSEBL .…Respondent. 2. CWP No. 15589/2024 Vikas …Petitioner Versus HPSEBL .…Respondent. 3. CWP No. 15590/2024 Chirag Chaudhary …Petitioner Versus HPSEBL .…Respondent. 4. CWP No. 15591/2024 Aman Kumar …Petitioner Versus HPSEBL .…Respondent. 5. CWP No. 15592/2024 Suneel Kumar …Petitioner Versus HPSEBL .…Respondent. 6. CWP No. 15593/2024 Vivek Kumar …Petitioner Versus 2 HPSEBL .…Respondent. 7. CWP No. 15594/2024 Ankush Kumar …Petitioner Versus HPSEBL .…Respondent. 8. CWP No. 15595/2024 Sahil Chandel …Petitioner Versus HPSEBL .…Respondent. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Ms. Neha Negi, Advocate vice Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Rahul Thakur, learned counsel, 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. 15588/2024:- “ a) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of counting of contract service followed by regular service for seniority, annual increments and pensionery benefits under CCS 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 3 Rules (Pension) rules 1972 with all consequential benefits to the petitioner. b) That the respondent may kindly be directed to give all the consequential benefit to the petitioners during the pendency of the present writ petition and decide Annexure P-4.” 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 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 4 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)