IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.1698 of 2025 Decided on: 10th March, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Shanti Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, 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 reliefs:- “ a. Writ in nature of the mandamus may be issued directing the respondent to regularise the services of the petitioners immediately on completion of 8 years' service on contract basis 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - along with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay along with interest @ 12% per annum. b. Writ in nature of the mandamus further directing the respondent to extend the same & similar benefit to the petitioners on completion of eight years of service, as has been granted to petitioner in CWP 1853/2009 titled as Arpna Bali versus State of H.P. with all consequential benefits, including subsequent revisions with 12% interest on the accrued amount along with entire arrears. c. That petitioner may also be granted same and similar treatment which has been given to similar situated teacher by respondent No 2, vide its order dated 28-11-2019 or in alternate the benefits of order dated 28-11-2019 may also be extended to petitioners, with all consequential benefits..” 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 31.12.2023 (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 - 3 - 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. 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March 10, 2025 R.Atal