IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8173 of 2025 Decided on: 20th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kiran Kumari Guleria & Anr. …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, 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:- “a. Appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners at higher pay stage at Rs.37,600/- from the date of completion of 2 years regular service in terms of notification dated 06.09.2022 with the further direction to release the arrears of 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 salary with all consequential benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum on delayed payment. b. That the entire relevant record of the case may kindly be ordered to be summoned from the respondents for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in this case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners are that their representation (Annexure P-6 colly.), 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 petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. 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