IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.402 of 2025 Date of decision: 06.01.2025 Rajinder Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy 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 relief(s):- “a). a) That the service rendered by the Petitioners as Para Teachers from 2003-04 followed by regularization on the same posts in the year 2014 may be allowed to be counted for the purposes of increments and Pension in terms of the decision dated 22.08.24 as rendered in Asha Sharma Versus State of HP annexed as Annexure P-6. b) The Petitioners may be held entitled to proper fixation of pay and all consequential benefits including arrears. c) That respondents/competent authorities may be directed to decide the pending representations of the Petitioners 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- on the issue by way of a speaking order in the light of the Judgment Annexure P-6.” 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 10.10.2024 (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 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 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 -3- consider and decide the aforesaid representation 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. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 6th January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)