IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6474/2025 Decided on: 21.05.2025 Gulshan Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Shivangi, Advocate vice Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ a. That respondents may kindly be directed to count the service rendered by the petitioners on contract basis prior to their regularization as qualifying service for purpose of pensionary benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and respondent may kindly be directed to grant pension to 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioners as per CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and thereafter consequential benefits be released to petitioners. b. That respondents may kindly be further directed to consider the case of petitioners for annual increments from initial date of appointment on contract basis and benefits be released in favour of petitioners. c. That in alternate respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioners for pension and increments as per law laid down by this Hon’ble court in its judgments passed in case of Sheela Devi and Jagdish Chand case and thereafter in case of Oma wati versus State of H.P., and same treatment may also be extended to petitioners and benefits be released to petitioners.” 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 13.01.2025 (Annexure P- 5) 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 redresssal 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. 3 5. In view of above, the instant petition is disposed of by directing 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 21st May, 2025(rohit)