IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3766/2025 Decided on: 19.03.2025 Sunita …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Mayank Sharma Advocate vice Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Sikander Bhushan, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “ i) That the direction be issued to respondents consider the petitioner as having been appointed against the post of TGT (Arts) on regular basis for all intents and purpose and further directing the respondent to pay the petitioner all the emoluments he is entitled as a regular employee w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment with all consequential benefits including counting the period for the purpose of seniority etc. from 19th April, 2021. ” 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 her representation dated 26.11.2024 at 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 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, 19 2025(rohit)