IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.3468, 3474, 3476 & 3477 of 2025 Date of decision: 13.03.2025 1. CWP No.3468 of 2025 Saroj Kumari. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.3474 of 2025 Surjeet Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 3. CWP No.3476 of 2025 Ashwani Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 4. CWP No.3477 of 2025 Suraj Pal. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. 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.3468 of 2025 read as under:- “a) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent by way of issuance of Writ of Mandamus to regularize the services of the Petitioner from the date of initial appointment as per Annexure P-1 for all intents and purpose and further this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the word 'Contract' from the office order dated 07-06-2023 qua the petitioner by granting him regularization form the date of his initial appointment. b) This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent State to pay the petitioner all the emoluments as the petitioner is entitled at par with regular employee in the establishment of respondent w.e.f. 07- 06-2023 with all consequential benefits including counting the period for the purpose of seniority etc.” 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 -3- 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 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 13th March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)