IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.126 & 127 of 2025 . Decided on: 3rd January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.126 of 2025 Pramod Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 127 of 2025 Jagdish Chand ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Loveneesh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Dalip K.Sharma Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - behalf of the respondents in both the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of following almost common reliefs (prayers have been extracted from CWP No. 126 of 2025): - “(I That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing the Annexure P- 1insofar as petitioner has been appointed as T.G.T. (Arts) on contract basis against the post reserved for the persons with disabilities 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 T.G.T. (Arts) from the date when appointment was given on contract basis against the post reserved for the persons with disabilities. (III) 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 petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions, have still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority. 4. Once the legal principle involved in the - 3 - 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 representations 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 3, 2025 R.Atal - 4 -