IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15158 of 2024 Date of decision: 04.01.2025 Suman Kumari. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Nikhil, Advocate, vice Mr. C.S. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “A That the act and conduct of the respondents of • offering appointment to the petitioner on contract basis instead of giving regular appointment under "Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class-II (School and Inspection Cadre) Services Rules, 1973", may kindly be declared illegal, unconstitutional and in violation to the R & P Rule. B. That the respondents may kindly be considered the services of the petitioner on regular basis along with all consequential benefits as per the provisions of the "Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class-II (School and Inspection Cadre) Services Rules, 1973" 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- since the date of her joining on contract basis i.e. 13-08- 2009. C. That the respondents may kindly be release the entire consequential benefits including the benefit of earned leave along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of their joining to till the date of realization. D. That the respondents may kindly be directed to give the same benefits to the Petitioner as the respondents in LPA No.54/2013 along with connected matters and the Petitioners in the Civil Writ Petition No. 414/2014, 416/2014 and 417/2014 has been held entitled by this Hon'ble Court and same has been implemented vide office order dated 01-12-2023.” 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 16.01.2024 (Annexure P-5) 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 their 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 -3- 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 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. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 4th January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)