IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8344 of 2025 alongwith CWP No.8348 of 2025 Decided on: 21st May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.8344 of 2025 Rakesh Kumar and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.8348 of 2025 Ajay Kumar and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with 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. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. Both these writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.8344 of 2025 read as under:- “1. That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant to the petitioners the benefit of higher stage of pay of Rs.40,100/- from the date the petitioners have completed two years of their respective regular service as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Court in CWP No.1638/2024 titled Mohit Sharma versus State of H.P. & others. Further direct the respondents to release to the petitioners all the consequential benefits along with arrears at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. That the respondents may also be directed to release the arrears of pay after re-fixing the pay of the petitioners at Rs.40,100/- w.e.f. the date the petitioners completed two years of their respective regular service along with interest @ 9% per annum.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in these cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations each dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P-2 Colly.), have 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 3 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, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P-2 Colly.) 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 21, 2025 Judge Mukesh