IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9188/2025 Decided on: 06.06.2025 Puran Singh & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Ms. Shivangi Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ (a) That respondents may kindly be directed to count the service rendered by the petitioner as volunteer teacher prior to their regularization as qualifying service for purpose of pensionery benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (b). That respondents may further be directed to count the services rendered by petitioners as volunteer teacher for the purpose of increments. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 3 (c). That respondents may further be directed to give same treatment to petitioners as given to teachers appointed on adhoc basis, tenure basis and contract basis, by counting there services render prior to regularization for the purpose of pension and increments.” 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 representation dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure P-8) 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 redresssal 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, the instant petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners, in accordance with law, 3 within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 6th June, 2025(rohit)