IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2666 of 2025 Decided on: 28th March, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Nirmla Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Yogesh K. Chandel, 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 grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents by directing them to treat the petitioner as regular Language Teacher w.e.f. 12-02-2009 i.e. Date of initial 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - contract appointment, in terms of annexure P-3 and P-4. Further directions to the respondents may kindly be issued that by doing so the pay of the petitioner may kindly be directed to be re- fixed by treating the petitioner as regular LT of 12-02-2009 and other consequential benefits such as ACP, seniority and counting of this period for pension etc. shall also be paid to the petitioner .Arrears of salary for past 3 years from the date of this writ petition may also be directed to be paid to the petitioner.” 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 05.01.2025 (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 - 3 - 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 March 28, 2025 R.Atal