IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10034 of 2025 alongwith CWP No.10048 of 2025 Decided on: 24th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.10034 of 2025 Sulekha Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.10048 of 2025 Shakuntla Rana …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate vice Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional 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 relief in CWP No.10034 of 2025 reads as under:- “i. That in view of the submissions made in the writ petition, the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of promotional increments to the post of Head Teacher w.e.f. 1.10.2012 with all consequential benefits.” 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 20.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) 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 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. 3 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 20.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) 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 June 24, 2025 Judge Mukesh