IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.452 & 448 of 2025 Date of decision: 07.01.2025 1. CWP No.452 of 2025 Meenakshi Thakur. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.448 of 2025 Naresh Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Others. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.452 of 2025 read as under:- Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- “a. That respondents may kindly be directed to count the services rendered by the Petitioner on contract basis against the post of JBT w.e.f. her initial appointment i.e. mentioned in the Para 5 of the petition for the purpose of annual increments, seniority, promotion and other consequential benefits on the basis of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in judgment passed in CWP/2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad & Others Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & other decided on 03.08.2023, which judgment has been duly implemented by the respondents. b. That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider and decide the representations of the Petitioner in time bound manner in view of above mentioned judgment.” 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 respective representations 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 -3- 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, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective representations of the petitioners, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 07th January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)