IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15002/2024 Decided on: 04.01.2025 Sunita Rana …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Kamlesh Kumari, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Amandeep 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 this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to Count the services rendered by Petitioner as Junior Basic Teachers as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as well as for annual increments, in view of the Judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP/2004/2017 Taj Mohammad along with all consequential benefits. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to release the arrears along with interest @ 9% P.a.” 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 23.08.2024 (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 aforesaid representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also 3 communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 04th January 2025(rohit)