1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8016 of 2025 Date of decision: 16.05.2025 Sonu Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “i. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant the benefits of High Stage of Pay i.e. Rs. 37,600/- to the petitioner on completion of 2 years of regular service as JBT in accordance with notification dated 06.09.2022 (Annexure P-3), keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has completed two years of regular service on 17.01.2024, in the interest of justice. ii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma & another Vs. State of H.P, and CWP 14628 of 2024 titled as Sanjeev Vardhan Vs. State of HP & others, in a time bound manner. -2- iii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant and release the actual monetary benefits i.e. arrears of salary, to the petitioner, from the date of initial appointment along with 12% interest, in a time bound manner.” 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 06.04.2025 (Annexure P-7) 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 their 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, 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. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 16th May, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)