IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 72/2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 03.01.2025 1 CWP No. 72/2025 Rehnuma Thapa …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 2 CWP No. 100/2025 Ayushi Bahri …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Dalip K. 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. 72/2025:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 “a) That respondents may kindly be directed to count the services rendered by the petitioner on contract basis against the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Non-Medical) w.e.f. 11.11.2019 for the purpose of annual increments, seniority, promotion and other consequential benefits on the basis of the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in judgment passed in CWP No.2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad & Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others decided on 03.08.2023m, which judgment has been duly implemented by the respondents. b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners in time bound manner in view of above mentioned judgment.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations, annexed with the respective petitions, 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 3 otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation. 5. In view of above, the instant petitions are disposed of by directing 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, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 3rd January 2025(rohit)