JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - Petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved by omission and commission of respondents, seeking direction to respondent No.3 not to consider the candidature of respondent No. 6 for the post of Language Teacher against the post reserved for Ward of Freedom Fighter and further direction to consider the case of the petitioner against the said post to be filled on batch-wise basis in District Bilaspur, HP. 2. Undisputed facts are that petitioner and respondent No. 6 belong to the category of Ward of Freedom Fighter. Vide order dated 9.2.2016, respondent No. 6 has been appointed as Language Teacher in District Solan, through Staff Selection Commission, against the post reserved for Ward of Freedom Fighter and since then she is serving as such in District Solan. Her initial appointment was on contract basis but now she has been regularized. After making appointment, through Staff Selection Commission, the respondent - Department had initiated process for batch-wise recruitment to the post of Language Teacher. Petitioner and respondent No. 6 originally belong to District Bilaspur and were enrolled in Employment Exchange Office, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, HP. Having no knowledge about the appointment of respondent No. 6 as Language Teacher, respondent No. 5 - Employment Exchange Officer, Ghumarwin, on 15.09.2016, had sponsored name of respondent No. 6 as well as petitioner, for batch-wise appointment to the post of Language Teacher, reserved for category of Ward of Freedom Fighter. In sequel thereto, the concerned Authority had interviewed the petitioner as well as respondent No. 6 on 26.9.2016. However, before issuance of any appointment letter to respondent No. 6, petitioner approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and vide order dated 7.10.2016, it was directed by the Tribunal that process for appointment to the post of Language Teacher, batch-wise, against the quota reserved for Ward of Freedom Fighter, be kept in abeyance. 3. However, before issuance of any appointment letter to respondent No. 6, petitioner approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and vide order dated 7.10.2016, it was directed by the Tribunal that process for appointment to the post of Language Teacher, batch-wise, against the quota reserved for Ward of Freedom Fighter, be kept in abeyance. 3. In reply filed on behalf of the Department of Elementary Education, it is categorically admitted that respondent No. 6 has already been appointed as Language Teacher in District Solan by availing the benefit of reservation provided to the category of Ward of Freedom Fighter from general category and as per instructions circulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh vide letter No. PER(AP)-CF(4)-4/96, dated 5th May, 2001, those sons/grand-sons/ daughters/grand-daughters of Freedom Fighter who have been appointed on regular basis as well as the married daughters/grand-daughters, shall not be entitled for benefit of reservation provided to the Wards of Freedom Fighter in services, against the identical posts, in the same scale. 4. Response of the respondent No. 5 i.e. the District Employment Officer, Bilaspur is that the main function of the Employment Exchanges is to register the names of the candidates and sponsor their particulars to the employer strictly as per the criteria i.e. qualification, age etc. fixed by the employer and the names of petitioner as well as respondent No. 6 were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Ghumarwin, in response to requisition dated 18.7.2016, as both of them were found registered in the category of Ward of Freedom Fighter and there was no information about the appointment of respondent No. 6 in District Solan, as Language Teacher and, therefore, her name was not struck off from the live register of the Employment Exchange. 5. The crux of the reply of the State is that had it been in the notice of the concerned Authority that respondent No.6 has been appointed as a Language Teacher against the post reserved for category of Ward of Freedom Fighter, her candidature would not have been considered for the same post, reserved for the same category. 6. The present petition was filed in the year 2016. Response thereto also were filed in the years 2016 and 2017. It is apparent from the reply that mistake by the respondents - Departments, which may be bonafide, but was detected in the year 2016. 6. The present petition was filed in the year 2016. Response thereto also were filed in the years 2016 and 2017. It is apparent from the reply that mistake by the respondents - Departments, which may be bonafide, but was detected in the year 2016. But instead of rectifying the same by cancelling the candidature of respondent No. 6 to the post of Language Teacher, to be filled on batch-wise basis, in District Bilaspur against the post reserved for Ward of Freedom Fighter, respondents - Departments continued to wait for the judicial pronouncement. It is a sorry state of affairs as it is expected from the State, for reducing the burden of unwarranted litigation in the Courts, to rectify its mistakes on its own particularly when such mistake is apparent on the face of record and is admitted by the Departments/Authority(ies) concerned. 7. It is apt to record here that the Government of Himachal Pradesh has approved 'H.P. State Litigation Policy' (hereinafter referred to as 'Policy') in the year 2011 and the same has not only been circulated by the Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, vide communication No.Home(Prosecution)(F)101/2010, dated 7.3.2011, to all the Principal Secretaries/Secretaries to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and all the Head of Departments in Himachal Pradesh, but has also been uploaded on the Website of Prosecution Department from the link of Home Department website www.himachal.nic.in/home. 8. It has also been communicated to all that Policy outlines broad guidelines of litigation strategies to be followed by the State Government or its agencies with a view to reduce litigation to save avoidable costs on unproductive litigation so as to reduce unavoidable load on judiciary with respect to Government induced litigation. 9. The Policy has been made applicable to any claim and litigation involving the State or its agencies including litigation before Courts, Tribunals, inquiries and in arbitration and matters pending in other alternative dispute resolution processes. All concerned have been requested to take necessary steps in accordance with this Policy after immediately forming Departmental Litigation Monitoring Committee in the Department and also appoint Nodal Officers to monitor the pendency and future litigation being faced by the Department in terms of Policy. 10. All concerned have been requested to take necessary steps in accordance with this Policy after immediately forming Departmental Litigation Monitoring Committee in the Department and also appoint Nodal Officers to monitor the pendency and future litigation being faced by the Department in terms of Policy. 10. As per Policy, it is compulsory obligation upon the State and its agencies to act honestly and fairly in handling claims and litigation, which includes dealing with claims promptly and not causing unnecessary delay in the handling of claims; paying legitimate claims without litigation, including making partial settlements of claims or interim payments, where it is clearly established that at least part of the claim is payable; acting consistently in the handling of claims and litigation; endeavoring to avoid litigation, wherever possible; where it is not possible to avoid litigation, keeping the costs of litigation to minimum, including by: i) not requiring the other party to prove a matter which the State or an agency knows to be true; and ii) not contesting clearly established liability if the State or an agency knows that the dispute is really about quantum; not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to agitate a legitimate claim before any competent Court; not relying on technical defences unless the interests of the State or a State agency would be prejudiced adversely; and not to file/continue appeals/ revisions etc unless the State or an agency believes that it has reasonable prospects for success or the appeal is otherwise justified in the public interest, provided that a decision to file/continue the appeal is made as soon as practicable and to file second appeals only on substantial questions of law. 11. Despite approval and adoption of aforesaid Policy, it has been seen that Departments, like present case, are invariably, instead of settling the claims or redressing grievances at their own level or rectifying the mistake wherever it is apparent on the face of record, are contesting cases vigorously for years together. 11. Despite approval and adoption of aforesaid Policy, it has been seen that Departments, like present case, are invariably, instead of settling the claims or redressing grievances at their own level or rectifying the mistake wherever it is apparent on the face of record, are contesting cases vigorously for years together. Another case, where despite noticing and admitting mistake, Department/ Government did not rectify it, is CWPOA No.7684 of 2019, titled as Netar Singh v. The State of H.P., wherein also reply was filed in the year 2017, admitting the mistake, but till 2021 no action for rectifying the same was taken and it was observed by this High Court that despite having noticed the mistake, no steps have been taken to rectify it and to redress the grievance of the petitioner that too after filing replyaffidavit to that effect. Such practice deserves to be deprecated. It can be done by the Government by issuing reminders, time-to-time, to all concerned and Court may also enforce this Policy by imposing heavy costs upon the State, recoverable from the concerned Officers/officials responsible for overburdening the Courts with unwarranted and avoidable litigation. 12. It is also relevant to note that in CWP No.1498 of 2017, titled as State of H.P. v. Raju Ram, a Division Bench of this High Court has directed as under: "11. Under these circumstances, we direct the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to convene a meeting of the Principal Secretaries of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, in apprising them of the existence, importance, significance, advantages and benefits of adhering to the Litigation Policy, in letter and spirit. In turn, it is expected of the Principal Secretaries to convene a meeting in their respective Departments, sensitizing the stakeholders with regard thereto. This would only help curtail the problem of docket explosion and prevent cause any unnecessary inconvenience and expenditure by innocent persons. 12. We further direct the Chief Secretary as also the Principal Secretaries to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to have all the cases reviewed, periodically, in terms of the H.P. State Litigation Policy. This alone would generate lot of good will to the State." 13. 12. We further direct the Chief Secretary as also the Principal Secretaries to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to have all the cases reviewed, periodically, in terms of the H.P. State Litigation Policy. This alone would generate lot of good will to the State." 13. A Division Bench of this High Court in CWPIL No.133 of 2017, titled as Court on its own Motion v. State of Himachal Pradesh, after observing that State, as a model employer, is expected to show fairness in action and directed as under: "36. We notice that State has formulated a Litigation Policy with the avowed object of not only reducing litigation, saving avoidable cost on unproductive litigation, reducing avoidable load on judiciary with respect to Government induced litigation. This is in tune with the mandate of Article 39-A of the Constitution of India, obligating the State to promote equal justice and provide free legal aid. In fact, by virtue of clause 1.4 (d to h) of the State Litigation Policy, the State is under an obligation to take steps to reduce litigation, wherever possible. Now, if the employees are not paid their salaries within time, obviously, they are left with no remedy but to rush to the Courts. 37. Of late, litigation pertaining to employees of the State has increased and it is not that State is the petitioner. The action assailed is of mis-governance or avoidable omissions on the part of the Government. Why should the State force an employee to litigate in a case where emoluments/salaries, which are undisputed, are not disbursed in time. 38. ........... 39. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and position of law, in exercise of our writ jurisdiction, we deem it necessary to pass the following directions:- A. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, shall provide a mechanism for enabling the employees to vent out their grievances of non-disbursement of due and admissible wages/salaries/ emoluments. And one such mechanism being of setting up a 'Web Portal' at the level of the Principal Secretary/ Secretary of the concerned Department(s), where the employees can lodge their grievances/ complaints. Such grievances/ complaints shall be processed and adequately responded to within a period of one week. This would facilitate speedy redressal of genuine grievances and prevent unnecessary litigation, clogging the wheels of administration of justice. Such grievances/ complaints shall be processed and adequately responded to within a period of one week. This would facilitate speedy redressal of genuine grievances and prevent unnecessary litigation, clogging the wheels of administration of justice. Such endeavour shall not only be in the spirit of Litigation Policy, framed by the State Government. We see great advantage in the use of information and technology. Not only it would result into effective and efficient redressal of grievances, if any, but also improve efficiency in the affairs of governance of the State. B. All the Head of Departments of Government of Himachal Pradesh/ Government Institutes/State Instrumentalities to ensure that in future emoluments to all employees of their respective Departments/ Institutes are disbursed in time; C. In case of said emoluments not being disbursed on schedule, except in the event of the emoluments being withheld as per law, the State/ instrumentality of the State shall be liable to compensate the employees concerned by paying statutory interest or the existing rate for saving bank deposit account provided by the State Bank of India, whichever is higher; D. Immediately thereto, the Head of the Departments/Instrumentality of the State shall hold an inquiry, which shall be completed within a period of 30 days, to ascertain the omission on the part of the concerned person, resulting in delay of disbursement on schedule; and E. Pursuant to the findings of the inquiry, the interest which stands paid to such employee, shall be recovered from the erring officer(s)/officials(s)." 14. In present case also, huge exemplary costs, recoverable from the Officers and officials proportionately, according to their pay, may be imposed upon the Department. But, taking a lenient view no cost is being imposed, with direction to the Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh, to look into the matter and issue appropriate instructions, reminders and to take all necessary steps in consonance with the Policy to reduce unnecessary and unwarranted avoidable litigation in order to save not only public exchequer but also energy in terms of time and human resources for utilizing the same in creative developmental work of public interest. 15. A mechanism should be developed ensuring that all such type of cases are placed before the Departmental Litigation Monitoring Committee by the Officer/official concerned and responsibility of the officer/official, who failed to do so, should be fixed. 15. A mechanism should be developed ensuring that all such type of cases are placed before the Departmental Litigation Monitoring Committee by the Officer/official concerned and responsibility of the officer/official, who failed to do so, should be fixed. Also, there must be periodical audit of litigation and working of Monitoring Committee and there must be effective a consequential action to ensure accountability. 16. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 has submitted that he has instructions to communicate that services of respondent No. 6, who was appointed on contract basis, now stands regularized and, therefore, respondent No. 6 is not averse against consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for the post in question excluding respondent No. 6. 17. For the aforesaid facts and circumstances, petition is allowed and the respondents - Department is directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner to the post of Language Teacher, on batch-wise basis, in District Bilaspur, reserved for the Ward of Freedom Fighter, excluding the candidature of respondent No. 6 against the said post and in case petitioner is found eligible and is in merit for appointment as such, appointment shall be offered to her on or before 16th August, 2021. If petitioner is found suitable to be appointed, then petitioner shall be entitled for all benefits of service, but with notional monetary benefits, from the date of appointment of others as Language Teacher, on batch-wise basis, pursuant to the interview conducted on 26.9.2016 in District Bilaspur, till issuance of appointment letter to her including counting of service for the purpose of seniority, regularization and pensionary benefits etc. and in such eventuality, petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed alongwith others appointed through the same selection process and her case for regularization shall be considered on the basis of the said date of appointment and her services from that date till her appointment shall be taken into consideration on notional basis for all intents and purposes except actual payment of monetary benefits. However, for the purpose of fixation of pay, the said period shall be taken into consideration for fixation of increments and other monetary benefits on notional basis by considering her to have been appointed on the date of her deemed appointment. 18. However, for the purpose of fixation of pay, the said period shall be taken into consideration for fixation of increments and other monetary benefits on notional basis by considering her to have been appointed on the date of her deemed appointment. 18. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh is directed to take necessary steps to ensure effective implementation of the Policy as observed and directed supra and to file compliance affidavit, in this regard, on or before 31.8.2021. The Registry shall list this case, on 7.9.2021, for orders for that purpose only. 19. Petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.