IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 570/2025 Decided on: 08.01.2025 Mohinder Kumar & Anr. …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 and Mr. D.S. Verma, Advocates. 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. 2. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to count the 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 increment, 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., and Ors. & CWP(T) No. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 6785/2008, titled as Narender Singh Naik Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. by this Hon'ble Court. (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.” 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-3 (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 3 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 08th January 2025(rohit)