IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.15510 of 2024 and connected matters. Decided on: 8th January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.15510 of 2024 Ravinder Kumar. ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 15512 of 2024 Dev Raj ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 3. CWP No. 15514 of 2024 Bali Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 4. CWP No. 15516 of 2024 Bhindro Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 5. CWP No. 15518 of 2024 Vijay Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ - 2 - Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with 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. 15510 of 2024): - “i. Issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to count the service rendered by petitioner on contract basis as Shastri (OT) from 23-07-2021 to 04-10-2023 for seniority, annual increment, pensionary and other consequential benefit as per the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 alongwith connected vide judgment 03-08-2023 titled as Shri Taj Mohammad & others in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 3 - 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, 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 - 4 - to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 8, 2025 R.Atal