IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8548 & 8550 of 2025 Decided on: 23rd May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.8548 of 2025 Vishal Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.8550 of 2025 Chhavinddra Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Vinay Sharma, 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. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - almost common relief, which has been extracted from CWP No. 8548 of 2025:- “i) Issue an appropriate writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to grant the petitioner the behalf of higher stage of pay scale (Rs. 37,600/-) w.e.f. April, 2024, upon completion of two years of regular service, in accordance with Rule 7 (A) of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) First Amendment Rules, 2022 and in parity with similarly situated employees as per the Judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, Mohit Sharma & Others Versus State of H.P. annexed as Annexure P-1. Ii Direct the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-2) submitted by the petitioner within a time bound manner. iii. Quash and set aside the inaction of the respondents- in-not granting the higher pay scale to the petitioner, being arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 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 representations dated 09.12.2024 (Annexures P-2), have still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority. - 3 - 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. 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 23, 2025 R.Atal