IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.34 of 2025 Decided on: 2nd January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Monika ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Narender Guleria, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma 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 identical substantive reliefs:- “(I) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing the Annexure P-1 insofar as petitioner has been appointed as 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - P.G.T. Now Lecturer (School-New) on contract basis against the post reserved for the persons with disabilities (hearing impaired) category. II. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner on regular basis on the post of P.G.T. Now Lecturer (School-New) from the date when appointment was given on contract basis against the post reserved for the persons with disabilities (Hearing Impaired) category. (lIl) That, the respondents may further be directed to grant all consequential benefits of pay fixation, annual increments, ACPS, seniority etc. and to calculate and pay the arrears thereof, in 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 18.11.2024 (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. - 3 - 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 January 2, 2025 R.Atal