IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5040 of 2025 Date of decision: 07.04.2025 Sandhira Kumari. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents by way of issuance of Writ of Mandamus to consider the petitioner as having been appointed against the post of TGT(Arts) under disabled quota pursuant to office order dated 11th August, 2011 on regular basis 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 appointment letter Annexure P-2 and granting her regularization form the date of her initial appointment i.e. 26th August, 2011. b) This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent State to pay to the 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- petitioner all the emoluments as she is entitled at par with regular employee in the establishment of respondent department w.e.f. 28th August, 2011 with all consequential benefits including counting the period for the purpose of seniority etc.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 23.02.2025 (Annexure P-9) 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 also bring in otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation. -3- 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 eight 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 7th April, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)