1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4869 of 2025 Date of decision: 19.05.2025 Jai Krishan Sharma. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, for the respondents-State. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “a. A writ in nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant service benefit to the petitioners for the period of contractual service rendered by the petitioners and the said period be counted for the purpose of granting of annual yearly increments as well as towards pensionary benefits with all consequential benefits. -2- b. A writ in nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents department to considered the case of the petitioner for grant of service benefits to the petitioner in view of the judgment dated 01.04.2024 passed in CWPOA No. 78 of 2020 titled as Mool Raj and Others Vs State of H.P. CWP 2411 of 2019 titled as Jagdish Chand versus State of HP and others and the arrear accrued thereon be paid with along with interest from the date of accrual till the date of realization in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 22.08.2024 (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 -3- also bring in otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation. 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 petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 19th May, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)