IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.1628 and 1668 of 2025 Decided on: 11th March, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 1628 of 2025 Raspinder Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 1668 of 2025 Indu Gupta ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Abhinav Purohit, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents in both the matters. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of following identical reliefs:- “ i. That the present Civil Writ Petition may very kindly be allowed and the respondents may be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner as Staff Nurse from the date petitioner was initially appointed on the said post on contractual basis in the month of August 2006/July 2007, along with all the consequential and financial benefits. ii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to further provide the benefit of the seniority from the date the petitioner was appointed as Staff Nurse along with all the consequential and financial benefits to the petitioner. iii. That the respondent may kindly be directed to consider the case/representation (Annexure P-X) of the petitioner in terms of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in a time bound manner.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievances of the petitioners are that their representations dated 16.08.2024 and 29.07.2024, respectively (Annexure P- X), have still not been decided by the respondents/ competent authority. 4. Once the legal principle involved in the adjudication of present petitions have already been decided, it is expected from the welfare State to consider and decide the - 3 - representations 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 their 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 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March 11, 2025 R.Atal