IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4852 of 2025 Decided on: 3rd April, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Ranjna Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Ms.Ranjana Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) To grant benefit of regular services from the date of initial appointment to the petitioner because 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - the petitioner has been appointed against the substantive vacancies after undergoing transparent and prescribed procedure of recruitment as provided under the R & P Rules for the post and that petitioner had been discharging the same duties and responsibilities as were being discharged by the regular Junior Basic Teacher and the case of the petitioner being squarely covered by the judgment dated 22-08-2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by this Hon'ble Court. (її) To grant the benefit of seniority, promotion, increments, grade pay, earned leave and the period of contract for pension along with all consequential & retirement benefits w.e.f. the date of initial appointment of the petitioner keeping in view of the settled law..” 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 08.01.2025 (Annexure P-4), 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 his grievances. - 3 - 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 authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge April 3, 2025 R.Atal