IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16054 of 2024 Decided on: 4th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kamla Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Parkash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned Additional 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 reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed that petitioner service of the Language Teacher appointed on contract basis on 26.9.2017 is liable to be considered for regularization in the minimum of pre-revised pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3200 Grade Pay w.e.f. 26.10.2020 i.e. from the date her counterparts were regularized instead of 30.4.2021 after taking into consideration of her three years continuous service as on 30.9.2020, with all consequential benefits. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefits of judgment dated 26.3.2021 passed in CWP No.5488/2020 & instructions dated 6.4.2022 at Annexure P-4, CWP No.9653/2023 decided on 30.11.2023 to the petitioner, with all consequential benefits including seniority.” 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 10.06.2024 (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 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 3 representation of the petitioner dated 10.06.2024 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 04, 2025 Judge Mukesh