IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2872/2025 Decided on: 03.03.2025 Pawan Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “ This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents by way of issuance of Writ of Mandamus to consider the petitioner as having been appointed against the post of TGT (NM) pursuant to office order dated 19-04-2021 on regular basis for all intents and purpose in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble court in CWP No. 5122/2022 and CWP No. 5276/2022 and CWP No. 9561/2023 in the interest of justice..” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner is that his representation dated 16.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) 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 redresssal 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 above, the instant petition is disposed of by directing 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, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March, 03 2025(rohit)