IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1408/2025 Decided on:06.03.2025 Om Prakash & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate, proxy counsel Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with 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. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ (i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent department to treat the petitioners in contract appointee of 29-Sep-2017 (by condoning the period of holidays as per Annexure P-4) and further the respondent be directed to treat the petitioners deemed date of regular appointment as 08-Oct- 2020 along with all consequential benefits including arrears of full salary. ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent department by directing them to grant seniority to the petitioners by counting the entire service rendered by the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioners on contract basis in the cadre of Shastri, from the date of their initial contract appointment, with all consequential benefits and further mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent department by directing the respondent department to count, the entire contract service of the petitioners, for the purpose of annual increments, re-fixation of pay, arrears on that account, pension and all other consequential service benefits.” 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 representation dated 24.11.2024 at Annexure P-6 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 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 petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the 3 aforesaid representation 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March, 06 2025(rohit)