IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.728 and 730 of 2025 Decided on: 9th January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 728 of 2025 Parshotam Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 730 of 2025 Sunil Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s): Ms. Akriti Rana, 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 in both the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of following almost common reliefs (Prayers have been extracted 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - from CWP No. 728 of 2025):- “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction my kindly be issued to the Respondents directing to count the period of approved military service towards fixation of pay in favour of petitioner from the date of his joining civil employment, and further direct the Respondents to release all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, along with interest. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner in the light of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No.3126 of 2021 Mukesh thakur & Anr. Vs State of H.P & Anr. a/w connected matters decided on 01.12.2023 and titled as in a time bound manner. iii) That the Respondents may be directed to release all consequential benefits such as arrears etc. in favour of the Petitioner along with interest..” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievances of the petitioners are that their representations, annexed with the respective writ 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 - 3 - 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 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 9, 2025 R.Atal