IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.84 of 2024 Decided on: 9th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sapna Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have filed reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner on regular basis against the post of TGT (Medical) from the date of her initial appointment, i.e., 26.11.2010 under 3% quota for disabled persons, for all intents and purpose, with all consequential benefits like seniority, arrears of pay etc., within time bound manner. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 b) That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued and respondents may kindly be directed to decide the representation dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure P-7) in the light of judgment CWP No.5090 of 2022, dated 19.12.2022, titled as Umesh Jaswal & Ors. V/s State of H.P. & Ors.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure P-7) 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 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 3 representation of the petitioner dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure P-7) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh