IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9380/2025 a/w connected matters Decided on: 05.06.2025 1. CWP No.9380/2025 Yog Raj …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 9382/2025 Asha Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 3. CWP No. 9384/2025 Saroj Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 in both the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 9380/2025:- “That issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant the pay scale of the Post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT's) and promotional avenues to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) to the petitioner in terms of the notification dated 20.08.2022 as communicated vide Communication dated 25.02.2023 with all consequential benefits, in view of the law laid down in case vide judgment date 04.09.2023 passed in CWP 2171/2023 titled as Hem Raj and Others V/s State of Himachal Pradesh along with other connected matters.” 3. According to the petitioner(s), the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner(s) is that their representations, annexed with the respective petitions, 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 3 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 petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner(s), in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 5th June, 2025(rohit)