IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10993 of 2025 Decided on: 10.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Ram Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Ms. Salochna Rana, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General. Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i. That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the promotional increments to the petitioner from the due date when he was promoted to the post of Head Teacher, with all consequential benefits. ii. That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant all the service 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - benefits to the petitioner as are admissible under the service rules. iii That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant/release the promotional increments to the petitioner like the similar persons in CWP No. 2500 of 2021 titled as Ranjit Singh and others versus State of H.P. and others alongwith connected matter (Annexure P-1) alongwith interest 12% per annum, within a time bound manner.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-2) , 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 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 - 3 - otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation. 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge July 10, 2025 (R.Atal)