IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2990 of 2025 Decided on: 4th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ramesh Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Skandh Shah, Advocate vice Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional 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:- “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the promotional increments to the petitioner to the post of Head Teachers w.e.f. 01.10.2012/the date from which the promotional increment has been released to such of Head Teachers who were promoted as such after 01.10.2012, with all consequential benefits, along with arrears at current market rates till such payment is made, in the interest of justice. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 ii) That the case of petitioner may kindly be considered in light of judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in CWP 2500 of 2021 titled as Ranjit Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.” 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 dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure P-3) 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 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 dated 12.11.2024 3 (Annexure P-3) 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 March 04, 2025 Judge Mukesh