IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.632 of 2025 Decided on: 9th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunil Kumar and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, 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. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “i) Issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to count the service rendered by petitioners on contract basis as Junior Basic Teacher from December, 2013 to 18-05-2017 for seniority, annual increment, pensionary and other consequential benefit as per the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.2004 of 2017 alongwith connected vide judgment 03-08-2023 titled as 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Taj Mohammad & others in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that the representations (Annexure P-3 Colly.) preferred by them 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 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 3 within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh