IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6094 of 2025 alongwith CWP No.6098 of 2025 Decided on: 11th April, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.6094 of 2025 Bimla Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.6098 of 2025 Laxmi Kant …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. Both these writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.6094 of 2025 read as under:- “(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on the analogy of CWP No.2500/2021 titled as Ranjit Singh and others Versus State of H.P. and others and other connected matter, Annexure P-1, being squarely covered and grant the benefits of promotion increments to the petitioner for the post of Head Teacher w.e.f. 01.10.2012, with all consequential benefits. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to take the decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 27.02.2025, Annexure P-3, submitted by the petitioner, within time bound manner.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in these cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations each dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) 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 3 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, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) 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 April 11, 2025 Judge Mukesh