IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.600 of 2025 alongwith CWP No.606 of 2025 Decided on: 8th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.600 of 2025 Asha and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.606 of 2025 Dolly Dadwal and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.600 of 2025 read as under:- “(a) That the respondent authority be directed to count entire services rendered by the petitioners on contract basis through RKS i.e., from the year 2009 as well as their services continuing with the Respondent Department on Government contract basis from 2013 and being regularized in the year 2017. (b) That the Respondent Authority be directed to give all benefits from the date of their initial appointment i.e., in the year 2009 followed by their regularization, for the purpose of increments, seniority and all other consequential service benefits, arising therefrom in terms of judgment passed in Taj Mohammad Case.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in these cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations dated 08.09.2024, annexed with both the writ petitions as Annexure P-7, 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 redressal of his grievances. This is also the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State. Not taking decision on the 3 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, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the 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 communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 08, 2025 Judge Mukesh