IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7170/2025 Decided on: 27.05.2025 Dayal Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J CMP No.9302/2025 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in removing the objections is condoned. Application to stand disposed of. CWP No. 7170/2025 Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “ Writ in nature of the mandamus may be issued directing the respondent department to pay the petitioner revised pay scale of rupee 5489-8925 from the date of appointment with further revision of pay scale from time to time and pay fixation be made accordingly in view of judgment passed in CWP(T) No. 5759/2008 titled as Subhash Chand and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others” 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 15.01.2024 (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 aforesaid representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, 3 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 27th May, 2025(rohit)