IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2978/2025 Decided on: 04.04.2025 Nand Lal & 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. Shivom Vashista, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “ That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to count the services rendered by the petitioners on contract basis prior to their regularization as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and for the purpose of annual increments, in the interest of justice.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is under instructions to confine, at present, the relief only regarding pension to be paid to the petitioners by counting the contractual service rendered by them prior to their regularization as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under CCS Pension Rules, 1972. 4. 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 01.12.2024 Annexure P-4 has still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority. 5. 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. 6. In view of above, the instant petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners, in accordance with law 3 within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 04th April, 2025(rohit)