IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10356 of 2025 Decided on: 01.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Khem Raj and Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Ms. Pragti, Advocate. For the respondents: 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 relief:- “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that in the facts and circumstances enumerated hereinabove a writ of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to forthwith release the promotional increments to the petitioners to the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - post of HTs w.e.f. 01-10-2012 i.e. the date from which the promotional increment has been released to the HTs who were promoted as such after 01.10.2012, along with interest @ 9% and with all consequential benefits..” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations Annexure P-2 (colly), 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. 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed - 3 - of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge July 1, 2025 R.Atal