IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.10032 of 2025 and connected matters Decided on: 26th June, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.10032 of 2025 Amrit Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.10218 of 2025 Premlata ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.10226 of 2025 Shakuntla Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents in all the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of almost common relief, which has been extracted from CWP No. 10032 of 2025:- “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 the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations, 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 - 3 - 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. 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 in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 26, 2025 Judge R.Atal