IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2360 of 2025 Date of decision: 26.03.2025 Aman Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief(s):- “i) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions to the respondent to grant the benefit of contract service for the purpose seniority and other consequential including as qualifying service for pensionary benefit and other benefits. ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction the respondent to grant the benefits under CAS (Career Advancement Scheme) after taking into consideration the entire contract services as per the 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Vide Judgment passed in case titled as The Mahatma Gandhi University and other Versus Rincymol Mathew CIVIL APPEAL NO.8031 OF 2022. iii) The representation may be further directed to release the consequential benefits along with arrear along with interest @9% interest p.a.” 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 representation dated 21.11.2024 (Annexure P-7) 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 time and not to sit over the same indefinitely compelling the employee to come to the Court for redressal of their 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. -3- 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 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 petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 26th March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)