IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2082 and 2096/2025 Decided on: 24.03.2025 1 CWP No. 2082/2025 Kiran Bala & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2 CWP No. 2096/2025 Yograj Sharma & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate. For the respondent(s): 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. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 2082/2025:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 “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.” 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 representations, annexed with the respective petitions at Annexure P-4, 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 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, these instant petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide 3 the 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 24th March, 2025(rohit)