IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7224/2025 Decided on: 02.05.2025 1. CWP No. 7224/2025 Manish Sharma & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 7226/2025 Vijay Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 3. CWP No. 7228/2025 Tanika Devi & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent(s). 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No.7224/2025:- “(i) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus order or directions directing the Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioners w.e.f. the date when the Petitioners have completed their two years service on contract basis i.e. from the date, the Regularization Policy was liberalized, along with all consequential benefits, including the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 and the petitioners be accorded the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022 after taking into account the services rendered by them on contract basis as having been appointed prior to 03.01.2022, as has been approved by the Cabinet on 14.10.2022. (b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to extend the benefits of the Notifications dated 03.01.2022 & 06.09.2022 and Grant Higher Stage of Pay in the Concerned Level of Pay Matrix i.e. Rs. 37,600/- as per Notification dated 06.09.2022 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 petitione(s), the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner(s) is that their representations, annexed with the respective petitions, 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 3 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 petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner(s), in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 2nd May, 2025(rohit)