IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.192 of 2025 Decided on: 22nd March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ravinder Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP No.4496 of 2025 The applicant/petitioner pleads that the main writ petition was incorrectly tagged with the bunch of matters that was decided on 27.02.2025. The instant matter does not pertain to counting of contractual services rendered by the petitioner. In view of the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed. Judgment dated 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 27.02.2025 passed in the instant case, i.e. CWP No.192 of 2025, is recalled. The application stands disposed of. CWP No.192 of 2025 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “1. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents by way of issuance of Writ of Mandamus to consider/treat the petitioner as having been appointed on regular basis from the date of her initial appointment on contract basis against the post of TGT (Arts) pursuant to office order dated 19.04.2021 for all intents and purposes. 2. This Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent State to pay to the petitioner all the emoluments to which he is entitled at par with regular employee in the establishment of respondent department w.e.f. 11.05.2018 with all consequential benefits including counting the period for the purpose of seniority etc.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) has 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 3 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, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 22, 2025 Judge Mukesh