IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8111 of 2025 Decided on: 20th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ranjana Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs read as under:- “i. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ 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.41300/- as 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 per Notification dated 06.09.2022 and fix his pay from due date i.e. after completion two years of regular service with all consequential benefits including the arrears alsong with interest @ 9%. ii. That the cost of the Writ Petition may be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in this case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure P5), annexed with the writ petition, 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 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. 3 5. In view of the above, these 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. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 20, 2025 Judge Shamsh Tabrez