IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15838/2024 a/w connected matters Decided on: 09.01.2025 1. CWP No.15838/2024 Sujata …Petitioner Versus State & Anr. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 15848/2024 Sapna Kumari …Petitioner Versus State & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent(s): 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. 15838/2024:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “(a) That the directions may kindly be issued to the Commissioner respondents to count the contractual service of the petitioner with effect from the date of her initial appointment on contractual basis for all intents and purposes, i.e., seniority, pay scale as revised time to time, annual increments, proficiency step up and promotion against the higher post as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP 2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad vs. State of H.P. decided on 03.08.2023, Annexure P- 3. (b) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner from the due dates with interest @ 12% per annum till the date of realization. (c) That the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to decide the representation dated 29.10.2024, Annexure P-4, within time bound manner.” 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 3 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 communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 09th January 2025(rohit)