IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 102/2025 Decided on: 03.01.2025 Mukesh Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ (i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to count the entire contractual services of the petitioners with effect from their initial date of appointment for all intents and purposes i.e. Seniority, pay scale revision from time to time, annual increments, proficiency step up and promotion/designation, in view of the judgment passed in CWP No. 2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad and Ors. Vs. State of H.P. (ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioners from the due date with interest @12% till the date of its realization. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 (iii) That writ in the nature of cursory may kindly be issued for setting aside corrigendum dated 28.09.2024 issued by Respondents (Annexure P-9) being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitution.” 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 respective representations at Annexure P-10 Colly 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, the instant petition is 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 3 communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 03rd January, 2025(rohit)