Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.6674, 6675, 6676, 6677, 6678, 6679, 6680 & 6726 of 2025 Date of decision: 25.04.2025 1. CWP No.6674 of 2025 Suresh Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.6675 of 2025 Narinder Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 3. CWP No.6676 of 2025 Anil Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus State of HP and Anr. ...Respondents. 4. CWP No.6677 of 2025 Seema. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 5. CWP No.6678 of 2025 Amit Thakur. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 6. CWP No.6679 of 2025 Rajesh Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. -2- 7. CWP No.6680 of 2025 Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 8. CWP No.6726 of 2025 Padam Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Anup Ratta, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S., Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S., Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.6674 of 2025 read as under:- “1. That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant to the petitioner the benefit of higher stage of pay of Rs. 41600/- from the date the petitioner has completed two years of regular service i.e. 25.04.2024 as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 1638/2024 titled Mohit Sharma versus -3- State of H.P & others. Further direct the respondents to release to the petitioner all the consequential benefits along with arrears at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. That the respondents may also be directed to release the arrears of pay after fixing the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 41600/- w.e.f. the date the petitioner completed two years of regular service i.e. 25.04.2024 along with interest @ 9% per annum.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their respective representations have 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 redressal 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. -4- 5. In view of above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective representations of the petitioners, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 25th April, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)