JUDGMENT : Ganesh Ram Meena, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers:- “(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby direct the respondents to reimburse/pay due salary w.e.f 12.02.2020 to 05.02.2021 along with interest. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents may kindly be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in regard to the payment of due salary for the period of 12.02.2020 to 05.02.2021, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents-authority on 26.05.2023, but the respondents-authority have not taken any decision on her representation. 3. After arguing at some length counsel for the petitioner made a limited prayer that the respondents-authority may be directed to consider and pass an appropriate order on the representation submitted by the petitioner for the redressal of her grievances expeditiously. 4. Considered the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner. 5. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Pawan Meena Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1665/2024) decided on 02.02.2024 has observed as under:- “Considering the arguments advanced above, this Court deems it appropriate to note that the State, by constitution as well as practice is a welfare-state. The State, whilst exercising governance over it’s citizens, is expected to protect and promote the citizen’s social and economic well-being, based on the ideals of equal and due opportunity and public responsibility for citizens who find it difficult and/or are unable to bare the necessities of life. With the aforementioned duty, comes the inherent task of being the ‘first-responders’ to the statements of grievance put forth by its citizens, albeit in the capacity of State employees or otherwise. At the same time, it is noted that the writ court, whilst exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, employs a discretionary approach, where in the presence of an alternate and efficacious remedy, the Courts often ponder in delegating the dispute to the said alternate authority, better equipped with experts or otherwise, to entertain the dispute. Resultantly, in service matters, the primary expert and/or the body possessing the complete acumen regarding the issue is the State itself, being one of the parties to the litigation before the Court. Resultantly, in service matters, the primary expert and/or the body possessing the complete acumen regarding the issue is the State itself, being one of the parties to the litigation before the Court. Therefore, by assiduously addressing the grievance put forth by the aggrieved employees and acting as first responders, the State can very well do itself a favour and reduce the litigation before it substantially. It goes without saying that the State is patently/obviously not under the responsibility to address the representations positively in favour of the aggrieved-employees. Rather, the only requirement it ought to fulfill is that of providing an ear to their grievance, and thereafter pass appropriate speaking orders in compliance of the principles of natural justice, which may or may not address the aggrieved employee’s concerns to their liking. However, by said the careful consideration of the representations received by the State, even if a fraction of the grievance(s) are resolved, of which the cost is born by the State exchequer as well as the litigating employees, the litigation before the Courts wherein the State is a party shall reduce immensely. Even otherwise, the State must take-away/embody the spirit of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and make a genuine attempt to redress the employee’s grievances by way of speaking orders, passed in response to the representations so preferred by them. It also goes without saying that rendering the representations preferred by the aggrieved employees mute, by way of non-consideration by the State, is reflective of conduct unbecoming of government servants who are tasked with the noble responsibility to serve the citizens, including the State employees, and maintain their confidence in the State. By merely adjudicating upon representations, the State shall not only lend itself a helping hand, but also extend the same courtesy to the litigants, Courts/Tribunals and also the State Exchequer, by way of reducing litigation costs. In this regard, Chief Secretary for the State is directed to issue instructions to the State instrumentalities to consider the representations of aggrieved parties and dispose of the same by way of speaking orders, so that frivolous/uncalled for litigation is cut-down before the already exceedingly over-burdened courts. In this regard, Chief Secretary for the State is directed to issue instructions to the State instrumentalities to consider the representations of aggrieved parties and dispose of the same by way of speaking orders, so that frivolous/uncalled for litigation is cut-down before the already exceedingly over-burdened courts. Resultantly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent-State is directed to pay due and timely heed to the representation preferred by the petitioner on 23.08.2023 and thereafter, pass a speaking order within a period of 30 days. It is expected that the principles of natural justice shall be adhered with.” 6. In view of the observations and the directions given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan Meena (supra), the respondents are directed to consider the representation (Annexure-4 with the writ petition) submitted by the petitioner before it and decide the same by passing a reason and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. This order has been passed on the basis of the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and it goes without saying that the respondents shall verify the facts stated by the petitioner and take decision in accordance with law. 8. The writ petition is accordingly stands disposed of. 9. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application, and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.