IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15874 of 2024 alongwith CWP No.15876 of 2024 Decided on: 9th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.15874 of 2024 Anju Katoch …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.15876 of 2024 Bimla Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate vice Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, 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. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.15874 of 2024 read as under:- “(i) That act of the respondent in not regularizing the services of the petitioner from which the petitioner was appointed on contract basis in 2006 along with financial benefits may kindly be held unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified, unwarranted, invalid, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the law laid down by the Ld. Erstwhile Tribunal vide judgment dated 11-1-2018 (Annexure-P/2). (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date the petitioner was appointed on contract basis along with all consequential benefits being a covered matter by the law laid down by the Ld. Erstwhile Tribunal dated 11-1-2018 (Annexure-P/2) in T.A. No.4487/2015 and judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No.3038 of 2022 whereby the incumbents get the regularization from the initial date of their appointment on contract basis along with consequential benefits and the respondent department is under legal duty to grant the regularization from the initial date of appointment along with other financial benefits.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in these cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations dated 22.07.2024, annexed with both the writ petitions as Annexure P-4, 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 3 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, 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. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh