IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.716 & 722 of 2025 Date of decision: 09.01.2025 1. CWP No.716 of 2025 Reeta Kumari & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.722 of 2025 Navita Thakur & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Virender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.716 of 2025 read as under:- Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- “a. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent department to count the service of petitioners rendered in contract basis for the purpose of seniority, pension, annual increment and career schemealongwith progression all other consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment on contract basis in the interest of justice. b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent department to count the service of petitioner rendered in contract basis for the purpose of earned leave from the date of initial appointment on contract basis in the interest of justice. d) That the respondents herein may kindly be directed to release the entire consequential monetary benefits accrued in favour of petitioners since, from the day of initial appointment of the petitioners on contractual basis along with interest 12% per annum.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their respective representations 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 -3- 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, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective 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 9th January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)