IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14834/2024 Decided on: 04.01.2025 Raksha Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ i. That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to count the entire contractual service of petitioner as Shastri teacher under Para Teacher Policy w.e.f. 25.11.2003 to 23.12.2014 for the purpose of qualifying service for pensionary benefits, seniority and annual increments under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and same may be released to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. ii. That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioner by 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 giving them all annual increments for the contractual service as Physical education teacher under Para Teacher Policy w.e.f. 25.11.2003 to 23.12.2014 and arrears of pay may also be paid to the petitioner alongwith upto date interest. iii. That the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to take the decision representations (Annexure P-6) petitioner 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 her representation dated 17.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) 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 redresssal 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 above, the instant petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the 3 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, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 04th January 2025(rohit)