IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15730/2024 a/w connected matters Decided on: 09.01.2025 1. CWP No.15730/2024 Ashok Kumar Chandel …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 15732/2024 Kanwar Ravinder …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 3. CWP No. 15734/2024 Uma Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 4. CWP No. 15736/2024 Rita Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 5. CWP No. 15738/2024 Jatinder Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 6. CWP No. 15739/2024 Anita Devi …Petitioner Versus 2 State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 7. CWP No. 15740/2024 Rakesh Kalia …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 8. CWP No. 15741/2024 Pooja Gupta & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 9. CWP No. 15742/2024 Satya Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 10. CWP No. 15819/2024 Manoj Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 11. CWP No. 15822/2024 Devinder Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 12. CWP No. 15823/2024 Dolly …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 13. CWP No. 15828/2024 3 Tape Ram …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 14. CWP No. 15830/2024 Sarita Devi & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 15. CWP No. 15832/2024 Archana Verma & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 16. CWP No. 15836/2024 Shankar Bhagat Negi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 17. CWP No. 15839/2024 Keshwa Nand & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 18. CWP No. 15841/2024 Reena Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 19. CWP No. 15843/2024 Anil Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 4 20. CWP No. 15845/2024 Jiya Lal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 21. CWP No. 15847/2024 Anita …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 22. CWP No. 15863/2024 Subhash Chand & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 23. CWP No. 15882/2024 Amit Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 24. CWP No. 15884/2024 Rajesh Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 25. CWP No. 15886/2024 Rubi Devi & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 26. CWP No. 15888/2024 Sushma & Ors. …Petitioners 5 Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 27. CWP No. 15825/2024 Naresh Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, 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. 15730/2024:- “ i. That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant to the petitioner the benefit of contract service for all the purposes including seniority, annual increments along with all the consequential benefits as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court in "Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others," CWP 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 6 No. 2004 of 2017. Further direct the respondents to release to the petitioner all the consequential benefits along with arrears at the rate of 9% per annum.” 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 within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also 7 communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 09th January 2025(rohit)