IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4224/2025 Decided on: 24.03.2025 Nisha Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Narendra Guleria, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ (i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing the Annexure P-1 insofar as petitioners have been appointed as Lady Village Development Coordinator (LVDC) on contract basis against the post reserved for the persons with disabilities category. (II) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioners on regular basis on the post of Lady Village Development Coordinator (LVDC) from the date when appointments were given on contract basis against the post reserved for the persons with disabilities. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (III) That, the respondents may further be directed to grant all consequential benefits of pay fixation, annual increments, ACPS, seniority etc. and to calculate and pay the arrears thereof, in a time bound manner.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that her representation dated 26.01.2025 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 in-definitely 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 3 communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 24th March, 2025(rohit)