IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7358/2025 Decided on: 05.05.2025 Ankush Soni …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ (i) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus, order or directions to the Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. the date when the Petitioner has completed their two years' service on contract basis, and also grant the benefit of High stage of Pay of 37,600 being a covered matter by the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure-P/5) in CW.P. No. 1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma & Others Vs State of HP & Others whereby it has to be held that incumbents are entitled to the benefit of higher stage of pay under Rule 7(A) of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) First Amendment Rules, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2022, notified on 06.09.2022, on completion of two years of regular service. ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to Grant Higher Stage of Pay in the Concerned Level of Pay Matrix i.e. Rs. 37,600/-and fix their pay from due date i.e. after completion two years of regular service with all consequential benefits including the arrears along with interest @ 9%.” 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 23.03.2025 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 3 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, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 05th May, 2025(rohit)