IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8120 & 8126 of 2025 Decided on: 20th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.8120 of 2025 Neeraj ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.8126 of 2025 Nishant Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. M.A.Safee and Mr. Pranav Kaushal, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of almost common relief, which has been extracted from CWP No. 8120 of 2025:- “i) hat a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to extend the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022 after taking into account the services rendered by him on contract basis as having been appointed prior to 03.01.2022, in terms of Rule 7A, as incorporated vide Notification dated 06.09.2022, and he be granted the Higher Stage of Pay i.e. 40100/- from the date he has completed two years of regular service, as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in Mohit Sharma Case (Supra). ii. That the respondents be also directed to release the arrears of pay after fixing his pay @ Rs. 40100/- w.e.f. the date he had completed two years of regular service along with interest @ 9% p.a.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their respective representations dated 17.04.2025 & 19.04.2025 (Annexures P-7 and P-5), have still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority. 4. Once the legal principle involved in the - 3 - 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. 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 20, 2025 R.Atal - 4 -