IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11168/2025 Decided on: 24.07.2025 Suman Lata …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, 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, accept notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief: - “That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent department by directing them to grant the petitioner the benefits of Higher Pay Stage by fixing the pay of the petitioner @ Rs 41600/- per month as on 31-05-2019 along with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay by getting fixation @ Rs 41600/- per month as on 31-05-2019 along with interest on delayed payment of higher pay stage benefit.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 12.04.2025 (Annexure P-6) 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. 3 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 24th July, 2025(rohit)