IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.116 of 2025 Decided on: 3rd January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Ghanshyam ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: 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 identical substantive relief:- “(A) That the respondents may kindly be directed to count entire services rendered by the petitioner on contract basis, from the date of his initial 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - appointment followed by his regularization, for the purpose of increments, seniority and all other consequential service benefits, arising therefrom in terms of judgment passed in Taj Mohammad Case & Dr. Ranjit Singh Case.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 09.11.2024 (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 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 - 3 - 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 3, 2025 R.Atal