IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16090 of 2024 Decided on: 1st January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Madhu Mati Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Deepmala Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, 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 reliefs:- (i) That act of the respondents in not counting the services rendered by the petitioner on contract basis as LT (Hindi) for the purpose of seniority alongwith all consequential benefits may kindly be held unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified, unwarranted, invalid, violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 03.08.2023 (Annexure-P/3) in C.W.P. No.2004/2017 a/w C.W.P. No.629/2018 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 upholding the judgment dated 25.05.2017 passed by the erstwhile Ld. H.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.3337/2016. (i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to count the entire service of the petitioner, including initial service on contract basis, followed by regularization towards seniority alongwith all consequential benefit being a covered matter by the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 03.08.2023 (Annexure-P-4) in CW.P. No.2004/2017 a/w C.W.P. No.629/2018 upholding the judgment dated 25.05.2017 passed by the erstwhile Ld. H.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.3337/2016 whereby the service rendered by the employees concerned on contract basis has been ordered to be counted for the purpose of seniority alongwith all consequential benefits.” 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 26.11.2024 (Annexure P-3) 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 3 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 representation of the petitioner dated 26.11.2024 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 01, 2025 Judge Mukesh