IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8166 of 2025 Decided on: 20th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Devender Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, 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 writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to pay the higher pay scale i.e. Rs. 41,600/- to the petitioner from the due date i.e. 20.01.2022 with all consequential benefits in light of the ratio laid down by this 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 1638/2024, titled as Mohit Sharma & Anr. v/s State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 29.11.2024 (Annexure P-3) and in CWP No. 3021/2025, titled as Pratap Singh and Others v/s State of H.P. and Another, decided on 07.04.2025 (Annexure P-4). ii). That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to decide the representation dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) made by the petitioner within a time bound manner by taking into consideration the ratio laid down by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 1638/2024, titled as Mohit Sharma & Anr. v/s State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 29.11.2024 (Annexure P-3) and in CWP No. 3021/2025, titled as Pratap Singh and Others v/s State of H.P. and Another, decided on 07.04.2025 (Annexure P-4).” 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 20.03.2025 (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 - 3 - 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 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 May 20, 2025 R.Atal