IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.6926 of 2025 Decided on: 28th April, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Roshan Lal ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to grant benefit of revised/higher 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - pay scale of RS. 5480-8925 instead of 5000- 8100 from the date of initial appointment as Shastri from 26.10.1999 to till the date of realization, along with arrears thereof. ii. That, the respondents may kindly be directed to fix the pay of the petitioner after granting aforesaid prayer, on the posts of Shastri and thereafter calculate and pay the arrears thereof and pay the same to the petitioner 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 petitioner is that his representation dated 04.04.2025 (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 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 - 3 - otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation. 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge April 28, 2025 R.Atal