IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 582 & 586/2025 Decided on: 08.01.2025 1. CWP No. 582/2025 Sonia …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 586/2025 Satya Paul Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 582/2025:- “a) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents by way of issuance of writ of mandamus to consider the petitioner as having been appointed against the post of Junior Basic Teacher pursuant to office order dated 27-12-2013 on regular basis for all intents and purpose alongwith all consequential benefits and further this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the word 'contract' from the appointment letter, issued to the petitioner on contract basis. b) This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent State to pay to the petitioner all the emoluments as they are entitled as a regular employee in the establishment of respondents alongwith with 18% interest w.e.f. petitioner’s date of appointment with all consequential benefits including counting the period for the purpose of seniority etc.” 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 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 3 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 representation 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 8th January 2025(rohit)