IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.114 of 2025 Decided on: 3rd January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Kuldeep Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Yash Sharma, 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 reliefs:- “(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent department to count the services of petitioner rendered on contract basis for the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - purpose of seniority, pension, annual increment and career scheme alongwith progression all other consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment on contract basis in the interest of justice. b. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent department to count the service of petitioner rendered on contract basis for the purpose of earned leave from the date of initial appointment on contract basis in the interest of justice. c) Entire record pertaining to the case may very kindly be summoned from the respondent. d) That the respondents herein may kindly be directed to release the entire consequential monetary benefits accrued in favour of petitioner since, from the day of initial appointment of the petitioner on contractual basis along with interest 12% per annum..” 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 30.09.2024 [Annexure P-4 (colly)] 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 - 3 - 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 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