IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.714 of 2025 Date of decision: 09.01.2025 Subash Chand & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, 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):- “i). That respondents may kindly be directed to count the services of the petitioners rendered by them as Lecturer(s) since their initial appointment as para teachers (Lecturer School Cadre) in the year 2003 and 2004 or in the alternative w.e.f. 07.04.2007, when the petitioners were brought at par with contract teachers by the respondents for the purposes of seniority, annual increments & pension in the interest of justice. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the increments & entire arrears along with interest from the 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- date of initial appointment as para teachers (Lecturer School Cadre) and other consequential benefits in terms of various judgments passed by this Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Apex Court in the interest of justice or in the alternative, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for counting of the period of initial service i.e. from 2003 to 2004 or from 01.04.2007 till their regularization i.e.18.12.2014 & 06.01.2015, for the purpose of seniority, annual increments & pension in light of the various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court. (Vide Annexures P-8, P-9 & P-10) iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider and decide the representation dated 03.11.2024 and to grant all the benefits in view of the various judgments (Vide Annexure P-11) for the purpose of seniority, annual increments & pension along with arrears in the interest of justice and fair play.” 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 03.11.2024 (Annexure P-11) 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 -3- 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 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 9th January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)