IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2498 of 2025 Decided on: 25th February, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ramesh Chand Rana …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate vice Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned 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 reliefs:- “A. That the act and conduct of the respondents of offering appointment to the petitioners to the post of TGT on contract basis instead of giving regular appointment as per R&P Rules on vogue at the time of appointment of the petitioner, may kindly be declared illegal, unconstitutional and in violation to the R&P Rule. B. That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the services of the petitioner as TGT (Arts) on 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 regular basis alongwith all consequential benefits as per the provisions of the “Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class-III (School and Inspection Cadre) Services Rules, 1973” since the date of their initial joining on contract basis. C. That the respondents may kindly be release the entire consequential benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of their joining to till the date of realization. D. That the respondents may kindly be directed to give the same benefits to the petitioners as the respondents in LPA No.54/2013 and LPA No.500/2013 and the petitioners in the Civil Writ Petition No.414/2014, 416/2014 and 417/2014 has been held entitled by this Hon’ble Court.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation (Annexure P-4) 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 3 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 (Annexure P-4) 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 February 25, 2025 Judge Mukesh