IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8604/2025 Decided on: 23.05.2025 Inder Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Vikrant, Advocate vice Mr. C.D. Negi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, 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:- “ i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners as TGT (Hindi) in all respect and grant them, the pay scale of TGT’s from the due date and promotion thereof in light of the judgment dated 04.09.2023 passed 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 2171/2023, titled as Hem Raj & others v/s State of H.P. (Annexure P-2). ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners TGTs for promotion to the post of Lecturer (School-New)/Head Master. iii) That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside the communication dated 21.01.2023 (Annexure P-1).” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representation dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure P- 3) 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 23rd May, 2025(rohit)