IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.15892 of 2024 Decided on: 8th January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Kamini Sharma .. ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr.Bhupinder Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta and Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocates General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) (i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to count the service of the petitioner 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - from his initial appointment on contract basis till his regularization for the purpose of seniority, increments, pensionery benefits and other consequential benefits in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble in CWP No. 2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad v/s State of H.P, in the interest of justice; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the entire consequential benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of their appointment to the date of realization.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure P-5) 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 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 - 3 - 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 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 8, 2025 R.Atal