IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.15066 of 2024 Decided on: 8th January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Papinder Singh and Ors .. ..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. R.L.Chauhdhary, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta and Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocates General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, 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 relief:- “(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to consider 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - the petitioners as TGT (Hindi) & TGT (Sanskrit) in all respect and grant them, the pay scale of TGTs and also to consider their cadre as State Cadre from the due date in light of the judgment dated 04.09.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 2171/2023, titled as Hem Raj & others v/s State of H.P. (Annexure P-2).” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representation dated 17.08.2024 ( Annexure P-3), 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. - 3 - 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is 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 Judge January 8, 2025 R.Atal