IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15582 & 15584/2024 Decided on: 09.01.2025 1. CWP No. 15582/2024 Parveen Singh alias Pappu Ram …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No.15584/2024 Raj Kumar Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Sat Parkash, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, 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.15582/2024:- “ i. Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent to count the service rendered by petitioner on contract basis as Language 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Teacher from 27.06.2018 to 18.10.2021 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 involved in the case 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 petitions 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 3 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)