IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5042 of 2025 Decided on: 7th April, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mukesh Kumar and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional 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:- “(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari by modifying the notification dated 06-7-2022 i.e. Annexure P-4 with a direction to the respondents that the 4% promotional quota for disabled person may kindly be provided from the date i.e. 30-06-2016 as has been provided by the State Government vide notification dated 27-08-2024 as well as the Government of India vide its notification dated 28-12-2023, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India i.e. Rajeev Kumar Gupta’s case decided on 30-06-2016. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 (ii) That the respondents department may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for further promotion i.e. Headmaster from the back date as and when the petitioners were fully eligible for further promotion in the year 2016 and grant all the consequential benefits accidental thereof.” 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 representations dated 04.08.2024 and 02.02.2025 (Annexure P-8 Colly.) 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 the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent 3 authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners dated 04.08.2024 and 02.02.2025 (Annexure P-8 Colly.) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 07, 2025 Judge Mukesh