IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.4708, 4710, 4712, 4714, & 4716 of 2025 Date of decision: 01.04.2025 1. CWP No.4708 of 2025 Tripta Kumari. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.4710 of 2025 Nisha Thakur. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 3. CWP No.4712 of 2025 Bansi Lal. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 4. CWP No.4714 of 2025 Jyoti Thakur. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 5. CWP No.4716 of 2025 Monika Khullar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Narender Guleria & L.S. Thakur, Advocates. For the respondent(s) : 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. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.4708 of 2025 read as under:- “(I) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing the Annexure P-1 insofar as petitioners have been appointed as TGT (Arts) on contract basis against the post reserved for the persons with disabilities category. (II) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner on regular basis on the post of TGT (Arts) from the date when appointments were given on contract basis against the post reserved for the persons with disabilities. (III) That, the respondents may further be directed to grant all consequential benefits of pay fixation, annual increments, ACPS, seniority etc. and to calculate and pay the arrears thereof, in a time bound manner.” -3- 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 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 -4- 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 1st April, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)